Showing posts with label christopher hitchens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christopher hitchens. 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.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

An atheist watches Duck Dynasty, and likes it!

We watched Duck Dynasty last night, for the first time. A great show.

My wife enjoyed it very much. I remember when I was excommunicated from Atheists of Utah for expressing my appreciation for the duck people's general stance of challenging the new dominant paradigm, and advocacy for good old fashioned family values.

Hitchens quits the Nation.

"...In the past few weeks, though, I have come to realize that the magazine itself takes a side in this argument, and is becoming the voice and the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden..."

Juan Williams got tossed out of NPR.

Where's a Hitch when you need him?

Maybe my views on the whole gay thing are softening a bit, but the de facto cult status of Stonewall is still ringing in my ears. I know of the gentle service oriented gays. But I also know of the wastrels who happily befriend convicted pedos. Can we separate the Truman Capote types from the service oriented ones? The people interested in real service to humanity, instead of vain wastrel tail chasing bullcrap?

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Curtis White is the liar - The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers

Curtis White has written the following book:

The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers

Mr. White is a government employee working at Illinois State University. What department does Mr. White work for? The science department? The history department? No! The English Department! AND IT SHOWS.

I read Mr. White's lame excerpt from his amateurish book at

White seems to be a big advocate for the blank slate view of human nature, a view largely debunked by modern science. Also I'm sure White would be irritated by Sam Harris's book on morality but I doubt he's even checked out the book. 

White seems to believe that the Exodus may have happened. Ok, what's the first f-ing thing you should do nowadays when writing a book? Check wikipedia!
The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

White seems to be a huge fan of liberal religion. But one key thing he misses is this:

Liberal religion serves as an apologetic structure for a.) woo woo unfounded beliefs, b.) calls for "diversity" which deny, among other things, the barbarous nature of key religious leaders - leaders who some naive ultra-left liberals just love, and c.) a taboo against being critical of people's "deeply held views."

The KEY thing about White's book is this: IT'S F-ING LATE. The guy couldn't manage to publish this hanger-on parasite of a book while Hitchens was still alive, and while he could respond in person and in the flesh. But, there's plenty of us who very much appreciated and valued Hitchens' work, who remember his words and his style.

Curtis White is in my view a coward and a liar, and he's unworthy of his role as an "educator" at a public university.

Dinesh D'Souza claims that we shouldn't let biologists out of the lab. However, it's rather more accurate to say that we should keep idiot English professors OUT OF IT.

White's other "contributions:"

Liberals are still upset at Hitchens over Iraq, and it shows. They dig up every piece of poo they can and heave it onto the grave of an otherwise noble dead man, for profit and attention. Was it right to go into Iraq? Hitchens made the ONLY case I listened to, and it was, at the very least, an intellectually honest and honorable case. Examine Hitchens' work on Mother Teresa & Bill Clinton -  two wonderpeople of the idiot-hippie ultra-liberal-left. Now today people like Reza Aslan has the left by the balls, as he pulls them around teaching them that Mohamed was a man of peace.

Science & history, as shared with us by people like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, isn't metaphysics. When idiot White uses the term, it just shows he hasn't done his homework. But that's not surprising. When you're a creative writer you don't need to do much else other than pull crap out of your ass.

For those of us who were members of real religions, like Mormonism, and conservative Christianity or Islam, we remember what's it's like to be brain washed & lied to. People in light & fluffy religions have no idea what it's like, no idea whatsoever. Pompous intellectuals like White would just assume let people continue in their ignorance, because liberal religion does so many good things in their view. But one thing liberal religion does which is particularly bad is that it gives people permission to continue to believe in bullshit, and it maintains a taboo against being critical of bullshit beliefs.

Science IS about being willing to take a step back from all dogmas. And the "dogma" of claiming that the Exodus didn't happen (like White claims) IS NOT A DOGMA AT ALL. It is an apparent fact that there was no real Exodus.

Check wikipedia before you write a book Mr. White. And, next time you're going to shoot out a huge poop from your bum, at least have the decency to aim at a person who's still alive, and who can respond to your tripe.

Other reviews:

“Atheist” Curtis White attacks Hitchens, makes fool of himself

Faith in the Unseen
Curtis White’s ‘Science Delusion’

Monday, March 18, 2013

Tariq Ramadan to speak in Salt Lake City - commentary

The Salt Lake City Public Library & several other public & private groups have invited slick Islam apologist Tariq Ramadan to speak. Speech title: "Islam and Human Rights: How will the Arab Spring bring Peace to the Middle East?" Some of the sponsors of his March 20, 2013 visit: Friends of the City Library, University of Utah, Westminster College, Gandhi Alliance for Peace, with more listed at

My commentary in response:

Links, videos, and books for your research:

Ibn Warraq's review of a book by Caroline Fourest on Tariq, a book entitled Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan. Book review:
Ibn Warraq speaking at the Secular Islam Summit:

In the book Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens wrote the forward. On page xviii Hitchens states the following about Tariq Ramadan:

...end of quote.

Here are links to views & videos critical of Ramadan's views & history:

Article including an interview with Fourest:

Tariq Ramadan’s Arab Winter by Samuel Helfont

The Flight of the Intellectuals: The Controversy Over Islamism and the Press by Paul Berman

Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman

Panel discussion: Independent Voices on the Middle East, which includes Paul Berman and Ibn Warraq

Ibn Warraq and Paul Berman talk about "Is the West Best?"

Ibn Warraq's review of Fourest's book on Ramadan:
Brother Tariq and the Muslim Hoods: Towards a Taxonomy of Islamic Subterfuges

NER Interview with Ibn Warraq - The Albatross of Liberal Guilt

Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan Debate: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has debated Ramadan in the past on more than one program. Hirsi Ali worked on the film Submission (a film critical of Islam) for which Theo Van Gogh was killed. Thus Hirsi Ali's views are a counterweight to that of Ramadan's.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaking at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. Has a lot of great background & research info which is critical of the apporach of people like Ramadan:

Hirsi Ali responding to questions at Ohio State University - further background info:

Additional background info from Hirsi Ali on Islam:

Irshad Manji debates Ramadan about cartoons:
part 2:

My own blog post on all these issues:
Liberal Socialist Democrats against Islam - yes we are here too

I frankly feel like all the groups who are sponsoring Ramadan's Salt Lake visit have been hoodwinked by his charms, charisma, and slick presentational style. Your own presuppositions have allowed you to be sucked in. But, the City Library is a public institution, and as such they're subject to public comment about events and about how public money is spent.

So, how about having Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Sam Harris in to speak about "Islam & World Peace" and how to achieve it? Hiding the truth & facts about Islam & it's founding prophet is not a path toward peace. Neither is forcibly sticking our heads in the sand. Honesty, and being willing to state that the emporer has no clothes is perhaps the most important thing we can do in this case, and in the case of all religiouns founded by charismatic charlotans.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights

As an atheist I whole heatedly disagree with Peter Singer’s positions on abortion, infanticide, and human rights.

Notes from video commentary, with additional thoughts:

Religion is a natural phenomenon. So the good that comes from religion is natural. There are atheists who are concerned about abortion, and who absolutely do not agree with Singer.

Without god everything is permitted? No. There is no god, and not everything is permitted. So the answer is no to that proposition.

In Averick's article on Singer he doesn't need to paint all atheists as immoral. We aren’t - we’re human just like him, and humans have human morals.

And as for Singer, I recommend you read this post and an earlier post, which includes notes on Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens, on the problems with moral & cultural relativism, and an advocacy for discouraging abortion.

Can a middle road be taken on abortion? How about: First & second trimester: legal but highly discouraged. Third trimester: illegal. After birth abortion: equivalent to murder. How's that?

Morality comes from a combination of socialization and genetics. Check out Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, & Daniel Dennet on the subject of morality, religion, and the thankfully evolving & improving moral zeitgeist.

I admit that I have built in morals, as do most people except for sociopaths, and except (in part) for people currently tied down by meme sets that are infecting their brains & making them less moral than they would otherwise be.

Religion can make people less moral than they would otherwise be (eg: suicide bombers as one example). The ivory tower of academics can do the same, for example where students learn the "value" of moral & cultural relativism, and the lie of the blank slate.

Did your god have sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Does your god live on Kolob? Is Mohamed god's messenger? If you don't believe any one, two, or three of these three points, then maybe it's not illusory to be a so-called atheist.

Stop mutilating the genitals of kids. There's plenty of people who're atheist with regard to many gods including yours, and yet they have just as much "family values" as you have.

Nihilism is not an appropriate response, not from atheists or theists or anyone.

A set of memes can put you off the rails of natural built in morality. So watch out & don't be sucked in by anyone.

Additional blog post on these issues:

Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions.

My additional writings:

And from people I generally admire:

We aren't required to choose between the ass hole tea baggers of Fox News & the current Republican Party, and the similarly anally retentive feminazi zero population growth ultra lefties who love PETA and similar groups, and who believe that women who're homemakers are selling themselves short. A pox on both of their houses. We're moving forward, as natural humans who're interested in truth and what science reveals about everything. And when your preconceived or inculcated notions are debunked, then drop them. I'll try to do the same.

Friday, November 9, 2012

more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig

Stuart Kauffman erects anti-reductionistic straw man...

Templeton basically gloms onto and supports any "scientist," "philosopher," or "journalist" who wants to blow smoke, obfuscate, and whitewash.

Related article:
Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation

William Lane Craig (a penultimate a-hole who's debated Hitchens & Harris in the past) gives a Templeton sponsored lecture:

Mister Icky Poo himself William Lane Craig blowing a huge amount of very thick smoke - and brought to you by who? Templeton: 

People blowing smoke - brought you to by the Templeton Foundation...

Related articles:

Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER

Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response

Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge

Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights

The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion

University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion

The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps