Reading the reactions of yesterday’s horrific Islamic massacre of Jews in Australia, I’m shocked at how low Australia’s leadership has sunk. Verily, I’m at a loss for words.
I asked Grok if there’s an English word that describes extreme evil and stupidity at the same time. Here’s it’s answer:
No, there isn’t a single, commonly used English word that precisely captures the simultaneous presence of stupidity (lack of intelligence or foresight) and evil (malicious intent or moral wickedness).
The closest concept appears in fiction and role-playing games (like Dungeons & Dragons), where “Stupid Evil” describes villains who commit harmful acts not just out of malice, but in ways that are self-defeating or pointlessly destructive due to poor judgment. This trope highlights characters who indulge in evil even when it’s counterproductive, combining cruelty with a lack of wisdom or planning.
I then asked Grok to invent such a word, and it gave me a list. I’ll go with “Malid:”
Malid
(from malice + idiot)
Pronunciation: /ˈmælɪd/ (MAL-id)
Definition: Behavior or character marked by both vicious intent and profound stupidity.
Example: “Vandalizing a hospital during a pandemic is peak malid—cruel and utterly brainless.”
Australia’s government has reached a point of peak malidity; it is extremely malid. Why do I condemn them so? Behold, an article from the Wall Street Journal, which has become increasingly malid in recent years, republished by MSN, which has been peak malid for a long time. As for the author, it’s hard to tell if she’s a cat or Chinese. Maybe both. Her name is Hannah Miao. She might be a communist Chinese cat. Without ever explicitly assigning any blame to the ideology of Islam, she writes:
The father and son accused in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in nearly 30 years used licensed firearms in the attack, police said Monday, as new details about the two men spurred calls to strengthen the country’s gun laws…
Albanese called for tougher gun laws, saying that leaders would discuss limits on the number of guns that can be licensed and a review of licenses over time.
Translation: We encouraged the import of hostile savages into our country, who then proceeded to massacre innocent people. In response, we’ll use this as an excuse to further curtail the rights of White/Christian Australians.
Authorities said the younger suspect is an Australian-born citizen, while the older suspect arrived in 1998 on a student visa and received a spouse visa in 2001.
Obviously, Australia’s immigration laws need to be changed – but we don’t see Albanese calling for any such change.
One brave man put his own life in danger in order to neutralize one of the Muslim attackers. The brave man happens to also be Muslim. Looking over the various news articles, and even a speech by Israel’s president, it appears that it’s perfectly acceptable to draw attention to the fact that the hero is Muslim, but NOT OKAY to point out that the attackers are Muslim:
Those of us who are not malid would like to pose a question:
Are we willing to give up our civilizations, and our freedoms, to Islam because SOME Muslims are good people? Does the fact that the hero, in this case, is Muslim justify turning a blind eye to the fact that it was Muslims who carried out the attack in the first place?
It’s a rhetorical question. Of course not. The correct course of action is to deport ALL Muslims from Western lands and encourage the eradication of Islam in Muslim lands as well. As for the good people who happen to be Muslim, they also need to be deported – but with consideration. If they’ve proven themselves worthy, they need to be deported with respect, compensation (as appropriate on a case-by-case basis) and safeguards.
Since one of the victims is said to be a Holocaust survivor (though she was, reportedly, born in 1944), I’ll adhere to Godwin’s Law here. There were good people who were Nazis.
I asked Grok about good people who were members of the Nazi party. It had to think about it for a while, and came up with this:
I followed up with this question:
Had the Nazis won the war, and Nazism had become the default ideology in the Western world, would we then have a scenario where very many, even MOST, “Nazis” were good people? After all, it would be the dominant ideology.
Grok’s answer is long, but here is its conclusion:
In conclusion, yes, in this hypothetical world, very many—even most—”Nazis” would likely be “good people” in the everyday sense: decent, law-abiding folks conforming to the dominant ideology for survival and normalcy. However, that doesn’t redeem the ideology or absolve collective responsibility; it highlights how evil can become banal when it goes unchallenged. This thought experiment reminds us why resisting toxic ideologies early is crucial—once they become default, “goodness” gets redefined in their image. What do you think—does this shift your view on historical “what ifs”?
Our conversation became drawn out, so I won’t burden y’all with the rest of it. Bottom line, the fact that some, even most, adherents to an ideology are good people doesn’t mean we should ignore the long-term dangers. We don’t know how Nazism might have evolved over time, or how Nazi societies would have fared over the centuries – but we certainly DO KNOW how Islamic societies have fared.
Is this the future we want for our children and grandchildren? Apparently, this is what malid people, such as Albanese, want.
