Iran Sentences Woman to Death For Insulting Their "Prophet;" Activists Attack Pete Hegseth For Making War on This Enlightened Regime

Iran War protestors crash Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's roundtable on Autonomous warfare: No. 3 https://t.co/K3cmqdOFKj

— Francis Kapper (@FrancisKapper) October 14, 2026

Iran Sentences Woman to Death For Insulting Their "Prophet;" Activists Attack Pete Hegseth For Making War on This Enlightened Regime

An Iranian woman has been sentenced to death for blasphemy over a social media post that insulted the prophet.

Accounting student Najmeh Amini, 23, was sentenced to death last month after being held in the notorious Vakilabad Prison in Mashhad for eight months.

It was previously reported that Amini was being held on charges that included 'insulting the Supreme Leader' and 'clashing with security agents.'

However, Iranian human rights activists have now revealed that the student was sentenced to death on charges of 'sab ol-nabi' (insulting the prophet).

She was also sentenced to 12 years, six months, and one day on charges of acting against national security and spreading anti-regime propaganda,

Trump on “Gays for Palestine” From Trump’s campaign rally tonight in Ohio: A man in the crowd waved a Palestinian flag. Trump said he “loves most” the flag of “Gays for Palestine” — “the gays are thrown off buildings (in Gaza) — the buildings there aren’t so tall anymore.” https://t.co/XD9ZwFk34f

— Gameover 🇦🇺🇮🇱 (@MarkoS2075) October 13, 2026

81 MILLION VOTES

Stupid Fucking Piece Of Shit

The Final Humiliation: Biden Presidential Library May Never Exist – No Site, Accounts Virtually Empty, Donors Won’t Give, and Worse

The U.K.’s Daily Mail reported Wednesday that the Joe and Jill Biden Presidential Library Foundation, according to tax documents from 2024, has just $4 million in funds. That’s all money left over from the former president’s failed campaign that year.  It hopes to raise $11.3 million, but the total still seems modest for a presidential library.

In comparison, the Chicago Sun-Times reported the Barack Obama Presidential Center had a price tag of $1 billion.

HOW TO DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY

Friend just sent me this from NYC. Mental Jihadists have once again taken over the streets. You should have every right to plow over these retarded zombies if they are blocking a public road… https://t.co/rHLpSkU5cV

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) October 15, 2026

Wait! Is He Saying Women Are Dishonest?

Women are dishonest about this stuff because they’re programmed to be. Their greatest weapon is their sexuality, but they also face social backlash for being too overtly transactional with sex, so women embrace ambiguity where they’re able to use sex to their advantage while maintaining plausible deniability Some examples: -Wearing sexy is outfits isn’t for the male gaze or to flex on other women for status, it’s just to feel good about themselves apart from any social factors -Dancing provocatively is not a sexual display, it’s just recreational fun -Marrying a rich guy isn’t about the money, he’s a good guy who provides security for their family -Wearing makeup and high heels to work isn’t to impress men and sway them, it’s just to feel confident I want to address a tangent here, which is that women will argue that these things are not sexual displays, because they do them at social events that are exclusively other women. I reject that: it’s still an indirect sexual display for the purpose of status Sexual attractiveness is perhaps the purest form of status that a human can possess. You’re desirable merely by your existence, you don’t even have to do anything. Women recognize this in each other and they will begrudgingly, although often subconsciously, recognize the status of other women who are more attractive (“ugh, she’s so hot, maybe I should set her up with one of my successful guy friends”). When women dress up for other women, they’re showing that they’ve got the goods to be a high status social ally. It’s a flex. Back to the main point, which is that we subsume our sexual behavior beneath socially approved motives. The thing is, women often aren’t being duplicitous when they say these things: their minds have convinced them that it’s the truth The human brain is incredible at rationalizing our baser desires. Men genuinely like sports. The reason we like them is probably because in our evolutionary environment, games like that prepared us for war. But men wouldn’t say they like sports because it’s preparation to kill the neighboring tribe; our brains simply find them fun. We enjoy doing adaptive things without consciously thinking about them Women engage in sexual signaling and sexual competition without deliberately thinking about it, and that’s a superpower because they can be disingenuous without lying. Their brains have disguised their motivations even to themselves. They don’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. Women don’t want sexual behavior to be discussed explicitly, because it makes it more difficult for them to use it to their advantage. The ambiguity and optionality work to their advantage. If a hot guy hits on them, they can receive the advance. If an ugly guy hits on them, they can reject him and say they weren’t asking to be hit on. If one woman tries to slut shame another for an outfit that distracts men, the wearer can claim that she’s simply wearing something that’s comfortable and cute Ironically, women also can’t acknowledge that this is why they’re upset, because the whole game is that they have to avoid discussing it directly and explicitly. That’s why all the outrage and criticism deflects from whether these outfits are overtly sexual (they obviously are), and turns it into jockeying over social status and norms where women try to make it verboten for men to even comment on it Shane Gillis, by making a snarky comment, threatened women’s sexual power and sent their defense mechanisms into overdrive

— Porter (@ParkSlopeFlngsm) October 15, 2026

Women are dishonest about this stuff because they’re programmed to be. Their greatest weapon is their sexuality, but they also face social backlash for being too overtly transactional with sex, so women embrace ambiguity where they’re able to use sex to their advantage while maintaining plausible deniability Some examples: -Wearing sexy is outfits isn’t for the male gaze or to flex on other women for status, it’s just to feel good about themselves apart from any social factors -Dancing provocatively is not a sexual display, it’s just recreational fun -Marrying a rich guy isn’t about the money, he’s a good guy who provides security for their family -Wearing makeup and high heels to work isn’t to impress men and sway them, it’s just to feel confident I want to address a tangent here, which is that women will argue that these things are not sexual displays, because they do them at social events that are exclusively other women. I reject that: it’s still an indirect sexual display for the purpose of status Sexual attractiveness is perhaps the purest form of status that a human can possess. You’re desirable merely by your existence, you don’t even have to do anything. Women recognize this in each other and they will begrudgingly, although often subconsciously, recognize the status of other women who are more attractive (“ugh, she’s so hot, maybe I should set her up with one of my successful guy friends”). When women dress up for other women, they’re showing that they’ve got the goods to be a high status social ally. It’s a flex. Back to the main point, which is that we subsume our sexual behavior beneath socially approved motives. The thing is, women often aren’t being duplicitous when they say these things: their minds have convinced them that it’s the truth The human brain is incredible at rationalizing our baser desires. Men genuinely like sports. The reason we like them is probably because in our evolutionary environment, games like that prepared us for war. But men wouldn’t say they like sports because it’s preparation to kill the neighboring tribe; our brains simply find them fun. We enjoy doing adaptive things without consciously thinking about them Women engage in sexual signaling and sexual competition without deliberately thinking about it, and that’s a superpower because they can be disingenuous without lying. Their brains have disguised their motivations even to themselves. They don’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. Women don’t want sexual behavior to be discussed explicitly, because it makes it more difficult for them to use it to their advantage. The ambiguity and optionality work to their advantage. If a hot guy hits on them, they can receive the advance. If an ugly guy hits on them, they can reject him and say they weren’t asking to be hit on. If one woman tries to slut shame another for an outfit that distracts men, the wearer can claim that she’s simply wearing something that’s comfortable and cute Ironically, women also can’t acknowledge that this is why they’re upset, because the whole game is that they have to avoid discussing it directly and explicitly. That’s why all the outrage and criticism deflects from whether these outfits are overtly sexual (they obviously are), and turns it into jockeying over social status and norms where women try to make it verboten for men to even comment on it Shane Gillis, by making a snarky comment, threatened women’s sexual power and sent their defense mechanisms into overdrive

Young white men are openly discriminated against in America every single day

Young white men are openly discriminated against in America. It's still happening, every single day.

— Kevin Bass (@kevinnbass) October 14, 2026

2) run diversity programs and he wouldn’t be able to apply. Imagine being a 16 year old and being told this? You will not be accepted for a role in your country of birth due to how you were born. I had to leave as my blood was boiling. How is this even legal?

— Trader Sarcasm (@Trader_sarcasm) October 13, 2026

AND THEN THERE'S THIS:

It's hard not to notice that every hateful statement becomes OK if you say it's about Whites.

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) October 15, 2026

Debanking Shouldn't Even Be a Thing

"Banks regularly used hate group designations from the Southern Poverty Law Center to debank customers."

— skepticalifornia (@skepticaliblog) October 14, 2026

Tedeschi Trucks Band

Calling Out To You

YOU GOTTA LOVE IT WHEN YOUR ENEMIES TELL THE TRUTH: "British" Muslim Influencer Explains What He Would Do If He Was In Charge

How Leftists Became Useful Idiots for Islamists

Ex-special counsel Jack Smith obtained personal info on 639K Republicans- including red MAGA hat buyers

Soviet level

— Northern Barbarian (@xnoesbueno) October 15, 2026

Is This True?

Never forget: Ilhan Omar’s family didn’t flee Somalia as the oppressed. They fled because her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, was a senior colonel in the Somali National Army of the genocidal communist dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, the regime that systematically slaughtered up to 200,000 people, mostly Isaaq civilians, in one of the worst genocides in modern African history. 

Her father wasn’t some low-level nobody or a teacher who just happened to be around. He was an esteemed senior officer who commanded a regiment, trained in the Soviet Union, and stayed in the military hierarchy of that brutal Marxist-Leninist dictatorship for years. 

When the regime finally collapsed under the weight of its own mass murder, famine, and civil war in 1991, the family ran, not as victims of the dictatorship, but as people tied to the apparatus that had just spent years bombing cities, executing civilians, and turning northern Somalia into a killing field. 

Now this same family is in the US, where Omar stands up and lectures Americans about justice, accountability, morality, and “genocide.” The hypocrisy is sickening. A daughter of a colonel from the regime that carried out the Isaaq genocide has the gall to moralize to the country that took her in after her father’s side lost power. 

Her father came to the U.S. as a “refugee,” just like Yusuf Abdi Ali, who was accused of war crimes and later found liable for torture in a U.S. civil court. Yet, as far as publicly available information shows, her father never faced comparable scrutiny or accountability. 

Consider this: Ali was deported from the US only two years ago, after a survivor pursued justice through the courts. It took a survivor’s determination to bring his abuses before a judge and jury. That’s the record.

Humpday Blues

Howlin' Wolf

Down In The Bottom

TRUMP: BACK TO THE FUTURE

I've held some opinions for a while which, though I believe them to be true, I have alluded to them. I don't believe have made them clear.

I figure it is time to actually express these opinions clearly.

I believe two of Trump's major unspoken Foreign Policy strategies are simply repeats of 80's strategies, implemented by Reagan, but used against current adversaries. 

And I think another one of his strategies is simply him looking at an old adversary, and implementing the strategy he believes Reagan SHOULD have implemented all those years ago.

What am I referring to?

1)  Russia vs. Ukraine

2)  China and the AI buildout

3) The Iran War

SO, let's talk about some things I have left unarticulated over the past few years. First, 

Why Did I Change The Name of the Blog From Infidel Bloggers Alliance to Who Would Have Believed The Singularity Would Be So Stupid?

One of the reasons I changedt the name is, I don't think anyone gives a shit about our blog anymore, so I just do this as a way of observing the world, and collecting information about what I consider to be the important/significant events of our time.

But, more deeply

A long time ago, a friend of mine in the Anti-Jihad space, told me she was asked to work with the Lifeboat Foundation; an organisation which purports to be concerned with the bioethics of AI. She asked me if I thought she should, indeed, work with them. I told her my opinion was AI was a bigger long-term issue than Islam, but Islam was more immediate. So, in short, she should considerate as an important issue.

The reason I bring up this old story is, I have always thought AI was a huge issue. But what I believed would happen with AI vs. what currently appears to be happening with AI are two different things. 

Influenced by Ray Kurzweil, I believed that AI would bring about the "Singularity" and humanity (remember "humanity"?) would be vaulted into a vast drama, wherein we would have to contend with deeply moral questions, such as, a) "What happens when human beings hare given unlimited power to destroy themselves?" , b) 'What happens when human beings have Omniscience, the power to surveil everything and everyone at all times?" (panopticon), and c) "What happens when people have virtual immortality?" 

Instead, we contend with a world of AI slop, and the very real threat that AI slop will replace knowledge, and we we be vaulted into a New Dark Age, where no one knows what is true anymore, and have lost the faculties of logic and reason with which to learn.

So yes, that's why the name of this blog is "Who Would Have Believe The Singularity Would Be So Stupid?"

So now, "Back To The Future".

What do I believe about Trump''s strategies and why are they from the 1980's Back to Future Land? 

Number 1 - Russia vs Ukraine

I believe Trump is applying the old 1980's Reagan strategy used in the Iran/Iraq War; that is encourage your enemies to beat the hell out of each other. Simple as that. 

Number 2 - China and The AI Buildout

I believe Trump is using AI the way Reagan used the Arms buildup, as a strategy to bankrupt a Communist adversary. This is a long-term strategy, and the results will, likely, not be seen for years to come. --- Remember, the Berlin Wall did not fall until Reagan was out of office. --- I believe the Foreign Policy (which includes those in key positions having to do with Economics) have bought off on this strategy. ---- For instance, remember that Bessent worked with Soros in the past so his working with Trump was not an obvious decision. It indicated something deeper at work. ----- And this strategy is being executed with a subtle prudence which is evading the notice of the usual observers, ie, the media. Trump is not likely to declare, "The Singularity Begins In Five Minutes." Nor is he likely to call for Xi to "Tear Down The Great Wall of China". 

Number 3 - The Iran War 

Go back through old videos of Trump. This one is simple. He always thought the US was foolish not to have destroyed the Iranian Regime. And he declared repeatedly that, if he were President, the regime would disappear. 

That's it. 

I could be wrong. I have been wrong about a lot of things. But that's what I believe we are seeing. 

He Had The Flu

 

Demographic diversity by itself rarely improves outcomes and can reduce trust, cohesion, and performance? IT APPEARS SO

“Diversity is our strength” became a DEI dogma rather than a testable claim. Demographic diversity by itself rarely improves outcomes and can reduce trust, cohesion, and performance. What sometimes helps decision-making is intellectual and political diversity: clashing ideas expose blind spots, challenge groupthink, and force better arguments.

— Timur Kuran (@timurkuran) October 13, 2026

AND THEN THERE'S THIS:

Divinity Schools have shown the same radical shift to the left as other schools in higher education. That was evident this week at Point Loma Nazarene University, where Dean of Students Jason Cha warned students that saying “in Christ alone” is a sign of “white privilege.” https://t.co/fudrgU1vXJ

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 13, 2026