Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

The Batons of Christopher Hitchens; The natural underpinnings of social conservatism; Jordan Peterson's work

Recently I engaged in a debate with a muckety muck in the Church of Sam Harris regarding Jordan Peterson. The man is highly upset at my 'slander' regarding Harris.

Some people fancy themselves as the quintessential sons-of-Christopher-Hitchens. They have their profile photos permanently set as a cartoon of a cigarette smoking Hitch, and they never change that photo to something else, ever.

From my perspective the batons of Hitch have passed to several people, and several of those people are on the current right-side of the political spectrum, much the chagrin of fervent Church of Harris believers.

Partial list of people who've been the recipients of a Hitchian baton: Andrew Breitbart, Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn, Gad Saad, and even Dinesh D'Souza.

List of people who're traitors to the legacy of Hitch: Sam Harris; Church of Sam Harris priests who get upset at 'slander' against Harris; and all atheists who voted for Her.

One person interviewed by Saad is Jordan Peterson. Peterson recently engaged in a discussion with Harris, and Harris could not wrap his brain around what Peterson was saying. Understandable for more reasons than one.

Peterson speaks valuably against social constructivism and Marxism (as does Saad). He also speaks valuably regarding the nuclear bomb level impact of artificial birth control upon the human animal. And even before I heard of Peterson, I wrote the exact same type of thing.

Regarding Peterson's religiospeak, it's important (and mostly required) to interpret the totality of it within an enlightened naturalistic framework.

Dennett's 'dangerous' idea regarding religion being natural cuts several ways. One way it cuts is that fully evolved human moral codes are couched within religious contexts. Another is that every single syllable emitted from the vocal orifice of Jordan Peterson needs to be interpreted within context.

A highly valuable project: more accurately (and without leftist SJW prejudice) describing the inherent, evolved, and high value to enlightened social conservatism, and naturalistically articulate evolutionary psychology.

Peterson approaches such a merging more than Gad Saad, in his own way Petersonian way.

Thus a great thanks to Peterson for opposing Marxism and social constructivism, on campus and off. And thanks to him for revolutionarily speaking the truth regarding one specific concern of social conservatives (widely available artificial birth control).

Valuable and fully natural scientific work.


The Harrisian (Sam Harris and his aficionados) brain has problems grasping many things. For example:

1.) That free will fully exists within the human animal, in a natural, reasonably adequate, and compatiblist sense. Dennett is right. Harris is a myopic hack on this front.

2.) That consciousness is not an ineffable humming glow.

3.) That male circumcision is highly abhorrent.

4.) That there was high utilitarian value to voting for Trump.

5.) That voting for Hillary was a huge betrayal to the legacy of Hitch. The crooked racketeering Team Rape versus a pro-American and thus pro-Enlightenment good-hearted businessman who used His Own Money to block the raping racketeering Clintons.

Also Harris engaged in malpractice regarding his psychological diagnosis of Trump, one which was petty, shallow, moronic, analy retentive, boring, stupid, and obtuse - and fully on par with most Harrisian projects and pronouncements.

So thanks to Peterson, Gad Saad, and others.

Saad is a social liberal. Peterson seems to be a moderate. When more scientists get some balls and brain cells, and finally see value to fully evolved social conservatism, then there'll be progress. But until then, the pro-eugenics pro-death nihilistic hacks aren't scientists but rather they're just worse than worthless nihilists.

At least Saad is willing to entertain conservative ideas without becoming an utter nutter. And Peterson is closer to the truth of the evolved situation, in his own Petersonian way.

What evolutionary process is involved when decidedly childfree denialist abusively permissive SJW leftists just want want want to import admittedly also abusive Muslims to breed on their behalf?

The SJW children of let-it-all-hang-out 60s hippies love forcibly-hijabbed women and abusive Islamic Puritanism and Islamic large families.


Yes Islam warps natural evolved processes in highly wrong headed ways.

A better course would be for children of the Enlightenment to wake up, reject baby killing and artificial birth control, and breed themselves rather than to import rapey barbarian savages to breed on their behalf.

In any case Harrisian logic is rather like a weak cog in a half baked pie, to mix a metaphor. Krausian logic isn't any better by the way.


Excerpts from an exchange with a Church of Harris priest (COHP) on all the above:

"Peterson's ideas are only valuable inasmuch as one is willing to take his epistemologically foolhardy presuppositions for granted."

My response:

Hardly. No more than one must assume the god believer does everything in his life >because< his god is a 100% actual fact, as opposed to a perceived fact - one which exists within the required/knowledge support structure of the meme-gene system in which he exists.

Why do people do the things they do? A combination of biology, biological history, genes and memes, which all inseparably play off each other.

Biology, evolution, life, and ideas which are rooted in various aspects of being alive, and a processing machine which can (by happenstance and not) be used for other purposes also. But even those other purposes tie into the fundamentals of existence.

For example the mathematician and physicist usually want humanity to survive, and they can be driven to use their realms of knowledge for fully biological-imperative type purposes.

How does the world work, and thus by extension how do humans work.

Peterson is concerned about what happens when humans toss the baby of morality with the bath water of religion.

Since religion is a fully natural memetic-encasement of evolved morality, it's reasonable to add 'evolved' as a preface word to the terms 'religion' and 'morality.'

COHP: "Again, his epistemology is predicated on an exceptionally precarious conceptual foundation"


It's a fundamental fallacy and also myopic to assume that expressed-views are only valid if the person expressing them can articulately state a reasonable fully-scoped foundation for those views.

Peterson uses religiospeak which must be taken within a naturalistic context. There's no other context which is reasonable. And a lack of understanding on the part of the naturalistic evaluator can lead to fundamentally flawed conclusions.

Aside from the terms he uses, Peterson has concerns about the state of humanity, concerns which do directly relate to Dennett's dangerous idea regarding religion being natural, Peterson's concerns are highly relevant, telling, and apparently factual.

The baby of evolved human morality tossed with the bath water of evolved and fully natural mysticism.

There's big costs and impacts.

COHP: "His entire philosophy collapses beneath the weight of its own incoherence."


He seems pretty coherent to me. His concerns are highly valid and valuable to make note of.

The memetic bathtub he's in is interesting and nuanced, and must and can only be understood within an enlightened naturalistic context.

COHP: "an epistemology anchored to an ontological fact is conceptually unsustainable."


How does the world work.

How do humans work.

What is human nature.

Why do humans do what they do.

Why are we here.

How can we survive.

The noob atheist, the rebellious leftist and weed smoking libertarian, all assume that without (the concept of) a god everything is permitted. Such people, and their abusively permissive and denialist meme sets, simply do not understand how the world and humans work.

COHP: "It's based on essentially circular logic"

You're stuck in the weeds of philosophical word games and forced paths which fully fail to understand what's going on, with Peterson and with religious believers in general.

Idea sets which are inadequately contextualized need not be 100% self consistent nor 100% 'reasonable' to be 'valid.' 'Valid' meaning having naturalistic causes, and meme sets which can result in reasonable naturalistically-rephrased ideas and natural material useful facts.

As for circularity, humans are evolved animals, and many aspects of human nature circle back to this fact and the general facts of how the human animal works.

COHP: "any truth claim he makes atop that foundation instantly fails."


...only for those who lack a fully contextualized and enlightened materialistic understanding of what's going on.

COHP: "It's important that one's conception of truth can at least sustain itself."


Religions do sustain themselves via and for natural reasons.

COHP: "Peterson's truth eats its own tail in a million different ways."


Not that I've seen. And the truths within religions need to, and can only be, properly understood within natural contexts.

COHP: "If his definition of truth ultimately leads to the extinction of the human race..."


He wants us to survive, and rightly so.

COHP: "...does that mean that it was never true?"


Properly contextualized truth, yes.

COHP: "It makes absolutely no sense."


He makes sense to me.

Marxism: Peterson observed highly negative impacts. He doesn't like what he saw. He doesn't want a repeat.

One of Peterson's points is that rejecting traditional religion can lead to errors in thinking, and to incredibly high levels of abusiveness, denialisms, and moronity, as was and is the case with Marxism. The utter stupidity continues on campus today.

COHP: "The soviet union"


...was an anti-human-nature identitarian leftist utopian totalitarian evil corrosive human spirit destroying dead-end endeavor. Peterson knows this.

COHP: "It was the result of disillusionment in the church..."


...which led to something far worse. And the Soviet Union was a de facto religion, as is Marxism.

Visit most any atheist (or humanist or Unitarian Universalist) group in America.

State to them that you enjoy Duck Dynasty, and that you're a pro-life anti-gay-"marriage" atheist. See how long it takes for them to boot you: faster than a Mormon Bishop. A de facto religion with dogma, doctrines, heresy trials, and excommunication.

COHP: "Most Nazis were devout Christians."


Fascism is a left spectrum endeavor. National Socialism.

There is identitarianism in both Marxism and fascism. Group rights and group blames. Utopianism. De facto eugenics. Racism. Dogmas. Doctrines. Heresy trials.

Yes I see that Communism/Marxism and fascism all have corrosive tribalistic elements and religious ones too. Peterson rightly points out negative impacts.

COHP: "You've COMPLETELY misconstrued Dennett..."


Many hours listening to Dennett.

COHP: "Sam's positions."



Harris is a myopic hack.

...on many fronts.

No Hitch-honoring Hitch-appreciator could or ever would vote for a Clinton.

The micro differentiations between spandrels and other effects are weedy sticky mud, regarding arguing about differences between what's one and what another. False choices based on myopathy. Why? Because here's the situation as previously noted:

Religion is a natural phenomenon which couches evolved traits.

There's synergies between memes and genes.

Not all religions are equal regarding positive and negative impacts.

Harrisian woo (Chamlers and Harris):

Harris didn't learn from:

Gad Saad.
Jordan Peterson.
Me, whom he censored.

------------------------------------------------------------ end of quote of direct exchange

Am I a quintessential 'son of Hitch?' Hitch isn't more important than my family & I don't claim he was correct on all issues. During his tenure I was partially swayed to the pro-Iraq-war side, but now I'm much more skeptical regarding the value of it. Moron Bush and even-worse moron Obama screwed up the place big time.

Time for Trumpian pragmatism now. But Hitch did free many brains from dogma, especially from leftist dogma.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

response to: The Childfree Life - When Having It All Means Not HavingChildren, in Time Magazine

Recently the following article was published in Time magazine online in August, 2013:

Having It All Without Having Children
The American birthrate is at a record low. What happens when having it all means not having children?

As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:

Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero

Should Atheists be trying to have more children?

I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:

"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..."

"...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."
Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.

Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.

There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.

Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.

After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:

---quote begins

As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.

As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.

In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.

So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.

Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.

It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state

Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.

There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.

What we teach our children about science may save humanity.

There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.

We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.

Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.

---quote ends

So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.


Friday, March 8, 2013

Margaret Sanger - as amoral as Peter Singer sadly

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist & I agree. Maybe everyone is a little bit of a eugenicist also. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, apparently wrote a rather distasteful article on the issue. Check out page 107 of the following document:

And a more readable version:

"The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
    a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

    b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

    c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

    d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

    e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

    f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

    g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives..."

---end of quote

Well, isn't that nice. All the good old fashioned family values we've come to expect from rather famous eugenicists. I guess what pops into the brain of one totalitarian zealot who had only one testicle can easily somehow pop into the pretty brain & eyes of another - the second person having no testicles at all. What's up with that? Was advocacy for eugenics just a 1932 "thing," or was this all just a coincidence?

Further thoughts:

Hitchens on abortion:

I am reminded of the crazed hysteria on the left revolving around overpopulation, a hysteria which has caused some people, sadly, to not have children of their own. "Those people in the third world have a lot of babies & so therefore I should have none." Crazy & stupid in my view.

More smart people and more atheists should have children. Yes, Planned Parenthood may do some good. But, Margaret Sanger was a eugenic authoritarian nutbag also - no better than parents who consider after-birth abortion today. Oh, who else thinks such a thing is ok? Peter Singer:

In looking at source documents by Margaret Sanger, it appears that she was an amoral fuck also.

Women raped, and all women up until the baby is viable, should be able to get abortions if they want them. But I also agree that the procedure should, in general, be highly discouraged.

Not everything is equal. Sanger & Singer are in rather the same boat - a boat I prefer not to be in.