Lux Rationis 🇪🇸🇪🇺💫

This account stands for: - Atheism/Agnosticism/Humanism - Spiritual naturalism - Liberalism - Anti-Fascism - Anti-Communism - Anti-Islamism - Post-Zionism (Confederalism) - Anti-Neofeminism - Anti-Globalism - Anti-UN/NATO - Soft Euroscepticism - Pro-LGBT (✂️Q+)

Piper Perabo

Tom Ellsworth is probably the only smart guy on the PBD podcast. He rightfully points out that the US has stopped talking about the Iranian people and is talking about nukes instead. The sense of abandonment inside Iran, unless something changes quickly, is deafening.

Last year I saw two young Muslim women with covered faces. I told them to free their faces. That 8 second clip went viral in the Middle East and I received the most poignant and moving messages from women, in the region, who lived within their own fabric prison. I see those women as women, like me, before the evil cult that imprisons them. I dare anyone to tell me I hate those women. I still struggle to find the right words to describe how I felt when one of those women wrote to me a second time, to say she had finally “freed her face”.

The irony of theists not seeming to understand why atheists would care about their life if there is no god, is that they believe in a god for the same reason. They think their life is special. And it is. You just don’t need to believe in a god to feel that

Congratulations to Dear @Malala Yousafzai for dedicating her award at the Hay Festival to Afghan girls banned from education for more than 1,700 days. Thank you for standing with Afghan girls and raising their voices. #LetAfghanGirlsLearn #EndGenderApartheid

Rashid Khalidi, despite his long record of harmful interventions, from undermining the moderate American Task Force on Palestine in 2006 to excusing ineffective/extremist campus protests after October 7 (“cut them some slack,” he said) and indulging in familiar sloganeering and historical exaggeration, offered thoughts that the “pro‑Palestine” ecosystem hardly gets to hear. He urges activists to work with people with whom they disagree, rejects purity and idealistic politics, and warns that the movement will collapse into irrelevance and uselessness if it retreats into ideological absolutism. He even commits the unthinkable: acknowledging that it is permissible to “agree with Zionists” on certain points. And he reminds Western activists that they are not “the resistance” – at best, they are supporting a struggle they do not personally bear. His tone feels less like a defense of “resistance” and more like an attempt to humble the loudest zealots who have turned themselves into weapons of mass sabotage. Notably, Khalidi also discourages diaspora Palestinians and their allies from wading into internal debates about Hamas vs. Fatah or armed struggle vs. nonviolence, instead urging them to focus on shifting U.S. policy. That may be his diplomatic way of telling Arab, Muslim, and progressive activists to stop endorsing Hamas, stop trashing the PA, and stop pretending they are stakeholders in internal Palestinian politics. Khalidi understands that open support for Hamas has become mainstream in many circles and likely sees how deeply it has derailed the conversation. He may also now be reckoning with the scale of devastation Hamas has brought upon Palestinians, finally registering the catastrophic consequences of the group’s so‑called “resistance,” which may explain why he is only speaking up at this late stage. I have said this for two and a half years: a “movement” that claims to be “pro‑Palestine” but refuses to listen to Gazans protesting Hamas, silences Palestinians who oppose Hamas, or shouts down anyone condemning October 7 is not a serious movement. When activists squander a historic moment of global sympathy by hardening their ideological dogmas instead of building a broad, inclusive coalition, what you get is not a liberation movement; it’s a clown circus. Source: Shu-Kaman podcast

“The essential principle of totalitarianism is the making of laws which are impossible to obey.” — Christopher Hitchens

"En un país bien gobernado, la pobreza es algo que avergüenza. En un país mal gobernado, la riqueza es algo que avergüenza" Confucio

@atheists_ke Spiritual blackmail

Telling people to either accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior or burn in hell forever is a threatening ultimatum, not free will. 😫

@atheists_ke I thought so

A single decent human being is far better than any Christian or Muslim. 💯🥹

@NaorNarkis @beardeddragonil

@beardeddragonil נכון. אני שייך לגרסה של מרצ שהביאה 12 מנדטים על חילוניות טהורה ולא של הגרסה של מרצ שלא עברה את אחוז החסימה.

אני לא חושב שחבריי בשמאל מבינים שנרקיס רץ דרך מרצ, ולכן יש לו סיכוי ריאלי להיבחר למקום ריאלי, זה מועמד שיגרום לקריסה מוחלטת של הדמוקרטים, אין לו מקום בשמאל הישראלי, מאסנו בפרובוקטורים פופוליסטים.

IN CONSCIOUS LOVE, SEX BECOMES FIRE. Not just bodies colliding, but souls fully awake—eyes locked, breath shared, every touch intentional. No hiding. No rushing. Just pure presence burning through skin. Two flames meeting, devouring the illusion of separation. This is sex on fire. This is love, conscious. ✨🙌🏾💫

@D_Preacher_1 Indeed 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

One of the things I find the most ridiculous about religion is that you claim to have this perfect, infallible "god" but if you talk to it, you can get it to change it's mind.

@D_Preacher_1 It's pure confort 😔😔

Bandits terrorize villages. Families pray all night. Innocent people still die. At some point we have to ask the uncomfortable question: Are prayers changing reality, or just comforting people while reality stays unchanged?

Tulsi Gabbard has officially stated that she is leaving to care for her husband who is ill. That may be so, but her policy differences with Trump over Iran and the general direction of his foreign policy play a huge role in this and it will have have very negative implications: 1) Gabbard built her political career on opposing regime-change wars. Critics and former allies have highlighted the uncomfortable questions raised by her serving in an administration conducting a war she long campaigned against. As the US is weighing a new regime change war in Cuba, after two previous attempts, this means one dissenting voice is gone. 2) She has historically maintained that military strikes without congressional approval are illegal and unconstitutional. When pressed by lawmakers in March 2026, she avoided reaffirming this view, stating she had to leave her "personal opinions at the door" to serve the president. This war has been waged in a way she finds illegal and unconstitutional. Her leaving opens the door to more. 3) She repeatedly contradicted Trump’s primary justification for the war—that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon. She testified that Iran's program was obliterated in 2025 and that they were not rebuilding it, directly undercutting Trump’s claims of an imminent nuclear threat. She will likely be replaced by a voice that will repeat whatever Trump wants them to repeat. 4) She has been sidelined from key decision-making. She was notably excluded from major strategy meetings, such as a June 2025 Camp David session and high-level briefings at Mar-a-Lago in February 2026. This is a significant victory for the Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth "bomb anything that moves" camp and a loss for the JD Vance isolationist camp. It means we are now more likely to see a move on Cuba and possibly further destabilizing wars after that. It seems no matter who you vote for, the neocons win.

A lot of Muslims can self-delude into ignoring parts of their religion, via intellectual and textual gymnastics. Even someone like Bushra Shaikh, who supports Islamic blasphemy laws and the Iranian regime, has persuaded herself she doesn't need to wear the hijab.

Religion is the worst thing to happen to man kind, Christianity and Islam Expecially.

“The liberal does not dream of a perfect consensus of opinion; he only hopes for the mutual fertilization of opinions, and the consequent growth of ideas. Even when we solve a problem to universal satisfaction, we create, in solving it, many new problems over which we are bound to disagree. This is not to be regretted. Although the search for truth through free rational discussion is a public affair, it is not public opinion (whatever this may be) which results from it. Though public opinion may be influenced by science and may judge science, it is not the product of scientific discussion.” — Karl Popper