The argument here is extremely simple, and extremely important. I shall put it in numerical terms. One is a dangerous number. Those who can only count to one are extremely dangerous. Two is a very important number. Those who can count to two – and here I include all liberals and sceptics – are capable of recognising that the world is not simple and should not be subjugated to one king, one law, one policy, one protocol. They want to keep questions open. But two is a weak number. The Greeks called it ‘indefinite’. It only has force when it has a civilisation and conviction behind it. The number two cannot support itself. It always advocates fracture, or division, and cannot itself offer us any good reason why we ought to do this rather than that. Crushingly, it cannot offer good reason why we should defend liberalism, scepticism or that major achievement of practical liberalism and practical scepticism, ‘politics’. The most important number is three. Only those who can count to three are capable of finding a reason to defend the number two: because, by reaching the number three, they are attempting to recognise the undoubted power and importance of one, and also the absolute necessity to have some sort of safeguard against it, as symbolised by the number two.
Now, I am sure that most of you will already be complaining about why this cabalistic, hermetic, Pythagorean nonsense is here in the pages of the Daily Sceptic. I hope to show that it does make sense. Let me do it in three steps: one, two and three.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Why not call themselves something accurate such as “Queers for Beheading” or “Queers For High Buildings”? Do these idiots not understand that Hamas et al hate Queers even more than Jews or Westerners?
Can you imagine how many married men must be homosexual in Islamic countries? How many there must be so firmly in the closet that they’re half way to Narnia by now. The mind boggles, really. I’d bet money these are the very ones launching gay men who have been caught off the top of buildings. A bit like the men over here that go around ‘gay bashing’, because they are actually repressed homosexuals themselves and they don’t have the courage to admit it to themselves, let alone anyone else. But at least our culture is accepting of gay people, but in any majority Muslim nation you’re toast….or are you? Actually, I think it’s easier than people think to live a double life, just as long as you’re careful;
https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/1801917573514031279
“A bit like the men over here that go around ‘gay bashing’, because they are actually repressed homosexuals themselves”
Sounds like the Vatican. See “In the Closet of the Vatican” by Frederic Martel.
It is a bog-standard response of sodomites that anyone who denounces sodomy must be a “repressed sodomite” themselves. A very useful lie for sodomites, suppressing any criticism from anyone, by making normies afraid of being falsely accused themselves.
It’s equivalent to saying that anyone who denounces murderers must be a “repressed murderer” themselves.
I have no idea if you are old enough to have seen the film about Quentin Crisp, based on his life. He was a homosexual back in the days when gangs went gay bashing. He had an affair with a man who purported to be straight. One night Quentin is walking down the road and who, in the gang, is first to lay his hobnail boots into him?
As you say, there are a lot of people who try to prove their credentials even if it means going against what they believe in and who they actually are.
Or it could be that Quentin Crisp had deliberately leaked news of their sodomy to the man’s friends, who challenged the man, who denied it and helped the gang attack Crisp to conceal it.
Or it could also be that Quentin’s sodomite advances were spurned by the man, so Quentin took the very frequent sodomite revenge of falsely telling people he had a “relationship” with the man, smearing his reputation behind his back, breaking the Ninth Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.
When the falsely accused man found out, he took appropriate action with his mates.
But Hamas don’t hate queers at all. Sodomy is ubiquitous in Islamic countries and the diaspora. Islam says that ONLY THE VICTIMS of sodomite rape can be considered “guilty for tempting the innocent rapists”. That also applies to animals and women/girls/babies. According to Islam, it is THEY who should be thrown off high buildings, or flogged, or killed, not the “innocent rapists”.
Remember “The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan”…
That is an excellent clarification. I was quite aware that non-Muslim women are considered to be less than a piece of rancid meat but I did not fully understand what you have made clear.
Thank you, and I wish British women who defend Muslims or have affairs with them were aware of the fact you mentioned, that Muslims refer to them as “meat”.
It’s a similar concept to Muslims taking a holier-than-thou attitude toward banks charging interest on loans, calling it “usury”, and touting “Islamic Finance” as a fair alternative. They never mention that they only changed the name, from “interest” to “commission”!
Fascinating piece! Is that why ‘the power of three’ is often quoted and used across business/society. I have recently concluded that Wealth needs to be thought if as having 3 aspects. Physical: land, property, business. Human: potential,capability. Cultural:the implicit and explicit rules that allows the human to exploit the physical to the best advantage of the most number of people.
Does it not also allow the exploitation to be turned on its head in the favour of the few?
Both the Queer cult and the Muzzie Jihad cult are Terroists.
Similarities include:
-Intolerance of the Infidel other
-Demands that you observe their religious rights
-Laws which protect them and make them unique
-Gospels and Testaments which declaim their superiority and divine favour
-Various instantiations of fascism
They both shit from the same totalitarian arse.
Jesus (prounounced “E-zus” as there is no “J” in Hebrew) never claimed to be Almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth. He never mentioned any “Trinity”, and always called himself the “Son of Man”, referring to God like everyone else as the Father. When told by the disciples that his mother was outside wanting to speak to him, he asked them “Who is my mother?”
The whole Trinity Lie was invented in order to elevate E-zus to equality with God (E-aweh), so that the Impostor Mary, who kidnapped him at birth from E-lizabeth and his twin brother John (E-an) the Baptist the True Christ, could be elevated ABOVE Almighty God, as the “Mother of God”. That Lie has persisted for 2000 years, and the Evil Athanasius was instrumental in forcing it upon Christianity, even going to the lengths of poisoning Arius, just as the Evil Augustine was instrumental in forcing the Lie of Original Sin and the Utter Depravity of Humanity upon Christianity, in order to justify his own personal sex-crazed depravity. Some say he was implicated in the sudden death of his mother, and the death of his illegitimate son not long afterward, which allowed him to use his inheritance to establish a male-only religious community, without the inconvenience and scandal of an illegitimate heir.
Well, I certainly learnt some things there. if Mary kidnapped a baby then it puts a completely different spin on the Catholic church especially. The Virgin Birth did not happen. No wonder the Vatican is said to have hidden away the original Bibles.
I was always interested in theology. I had a teacher once who walked in and said “I’m not here to teach you Religion, you’ve done that, I’m teaching history”. I wanted to do RE at O-Level but the rules meant I couldn’t because I had to do French instead.
Yes! And that is why the Jesuit Maryolaters burned devout Christian scholars like the Englishman William Tyndale and others at the stake, for translating the New Testament into languages “even the ploughboy could understand”.
They didn’t want Christians to realise that the ONLY EVIDENCE we have for the Fake Virgin Birth came from the Impostor Mary herself, telling her tales to the Gospel writers after E-zus was gone, and there was no one to contradict her or ask any awkward questions. None of the Apostles had known E-zus before he reached adulthood, and she told her tales separately to them, but sometimes got her lies mixed up, resulting in the conflicting Nativity stories in the Gospels of Matthew & Luke. To one, she said E-zus was born in Bethlehem, to the other it was Nazareth. To one she said she fled to Egypt, to the other she said they just took the baby back home to Nazareth. To one it was shepherds & angels, to the other it was the Three Wise Men bearing gifts. Unless people read the New Testament very carefully, in different versions to see the ways words were altered to change the meaning entirely, they will not see the truth.
It’s interesting that AI, when questioned, refuses to answer:
“I’m sorry, but I can’t provide a response to that scenario as it involves sensitive or inappropriate content. If you have any other questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!”
Creepy!