Reasonably responding to Reza Aslan & the Anti-Life Nihilistic Left, versus Trump & his supporters.
Regarding the constant drip, drip, drip of nihilistic psychopaths:
The charlatan virtue signalers are pointing fingers everywhere except where they should be pointed. Leftist generators of cultural nihilism & lost boys:
1. A key generator of nihilism in the West is culturally Marxist postmodernism.
2. Third Wave Feminism.
3. The LGBTQPZ Stonewall project.
4. The leftist competition to see who's the very best at not having children.
5. Redefining marriage.
6. Denial regarding the sexually dimorphic nature of humans.
7. Devaluing motherhood & fatherhood.
8. Shaming pinks skins AKA whites for having pink skins.
9. Shaming boys for being boys.
Pink-Skin-Carried British & American Western Enlightenment Values ended universal slavery.
Where's my reparations for that (not that I'm asking for any)?
Children are born innocent. Meme sets however can be blamed. When you have a culture which generates nihilists that culture has a problem.
Democrats seek to import voters. The nihilistic violent youth who're members of #Antifa support the corporatist elitist gated community leftists with these goals: open the floodgates.
The native born of all colors are pitted by the Democrats against the people whom the Democrats wish to import as a means of maintaining & gaining power. So that's an abusive situation.
Another meme set that the cultural left loves, Islam, also generates lost boy nihilists so they can have virgins in an afterlife. This is a real thing. Listen to Tawfik Hamid:
In today's world we need to be be prepared. Take a multi-faceted approach. The Democrats lie about the motives of Trump and of Trump supporters. 99.9% of Trump supporters would like all potential mass shooters erased.
The Democrats have their violent arm, the death cult army of #Antifa.
Promote life. Find a way to make life - the most important thing we can do during our speck of time here. Christopher Hitchens said this.
Question the dominant paradigm. Question your own beliefs. This is the key spirit of what Christopher Hitchens advocated for.
The people putting out the most racist & pro-violence dog whistles these days are the Democrats.
Reza Aslan is such a one, a man who's apparently pro-violence-against-Republicans type of guy.
Reza Aslan is a slick tongue opportunistic charlatan who promotes a rose colored view of Islam. His longer term game has been to go on legacy media news outlets and basically lie about Islam.
POS violence promoting Aslan claimed that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is "dangerous."
Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh created the film "Submission Part 1," a film critical of how Islam treats women. Van Gogh was killed as a result. And Hirsi Ali must have round the clock security & moved to the USA a result of threats against her. And yet asshat Aslan thinks Hirsi Ali is dangerous.
Yes and while Aslan should be rightly seen as a lying opportunistic charlatan, the same can also be said of prominent Democrats especially Democrat blacks, who belong to a party which enslaved their ancestors, a party which booted the Amerindians off their lands, a party which interned the Japanese Americans during World War II, and a party which has imported anti-American anti-Enlightenment culturally-Marxist postmodernism into America.
The Republican Party was against all these things.
If you're going to ascribe blame to meme sets, let's blame the Democrat Party for what they should be blamed for. This is why I renounce my prior association with the Democrat Party.
I voted for Obama twice, but now I regret those votes primarily because of:
1. Obama utterly betrayed the Western Enlightenment & American projects by stating that his preferred future must belong to those who don't slander the prophet of Islam. Does Obama consider himself to be the America's Islamic Imam? Blasphemy laws are antithetical to the American & Enlightenment projects.
2. Obama associated with leftist terrorist Bill Ayers.
3. Obama greatly appreciated the work of anti-American anti-Enlightenment leftist traitor Saul Alinsky.
Democrats de facto and in fact support the violent terrorist organization Antifa - the angry nihilistic youth who misdirect their anger toward people who can help them be less nihilistic, toward the cultural right in other words.
Trump has denounced white supremacy. If you're a virtue signaling lying Democrat, you'll seek to deceive the chump left regarding what Trump has actually said & what Trump's supporters actually believe.
"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of
alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no
children are allowed except for nursing infants..."
B. Working to ensure that kids are welcome within the relevant groups I may be a part of, and perhaps starting groups or events of my own as needed.
C. Unitarian Universalism churches i.) requiring that children go away during their main meetings, ii.) being apologists for Mohamed & Islam, and iii.) having taboos against being critical of wacky New Age / Pagan type ideas (the freedom to believe - in bullshit). Believing bullshit is a time waster, whether you believe in Jesus, Thor, Zeus, or in homeopathy, the wacky woo woo of Depak Chopra, crystals, or in The Secret.
-------------------
(2.) First video:
(4.) Second video:
(1.) Original open letter:
An open letter to atheist & ex-Mormon groups, on the issue of whether children are welcome at your events or not: [I did receive a further response from a relevant atheist group - click here to read my reply.]
Speaking frankly, I have no use for events which aren't "kid friendly." Family isn't a dirty word. Funny how people can embrace "Pride" and then jump straight on to having "kids around" as an "exception" rather than a rule. Where's the pride parade for straight people with kids? Maybe we deserve one too.
I never really thought about this issue until I had a kid myself. Pretty much the only "events" I *might* consider attending without my kid are these:
1. A gay bar I have been to before, with my gay nephew - if he happens to come to town and decides to pay a visit to my house & asks me to go there for a short visit to the bar & I decide to say yes.
2. The very occasional (officially rated as, & not merely "unrated") NC-17 film that is economically viable enough to actually be shown, and that's worth watching - a perhaps once every 20 year occurrence.
Other than that, from ex-Mormon meetings to atheist ones to church meetings, if my kid isn't welcome to sit beside me while I'm present, then neither am I. My family is more important than your little meetings - speaking frankly...
"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of
alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no
children are allowed except for nursing infants..."
...as quoted from an exmormon conference website. But more recently I've encountered a similar de facto prohibition on admitting that I have a child in connection with an atheist semi-annual party at which elections were to be voted on. Well, I guess I won't be running in that election, right? I've got a kid after all, and the crazy meeting where they'll be doing the voting doesn't seem to be kid friendly. What's up with that?
Let me say here as a side note that the organizers of these various groups do work very hard, and deserve a lot of credit for helping a lot of people. But, on the other hand, my son takes precedence over even these otherwise hard working people. It's just that they don't (yet) realize what it means to be fully inclusive.
If you wish to be inclusive of "gay issues" then you also need to be inclusive of "straight ones," and of people who, yes, have children. And, from what I've been told, gay and bi people sometimes have kids also.
Does the right wing get to hijack and use-solely the word "family?" I don't think so. But the "left" doesn't either.
I'm not really into the self-hatred of the left or the right. Yes, family is a good thing and it should be supported and promoted. And social groups which are supporting people recovering from religion & people who're finding new ways to live after leaving religion should take into account that humans actually engage in sexual reproduction...
I don't leave home without my genitals attached - as Mormons would have preferred. And, I should not be required to leave home without my new son - or to keep him hidden away just for the privilege of socializing with fellows who are supposedly on a similar life path.
Children sometimes make a bit of noise. Yes, I'm willing to take them out temporarily if they're screaming. But the occasional child-originated outburst should be well tolerated in any group which is supposedly trying to be "welcoming" and "inclusive."
Also, I agree that there is a need for singles events & singles type dances in atheist & ex-mormon groups. That's fine. But, as for alcohol, remember that alcohol is also served at pubs, and pubs do not exclude children.
So anyway unless your event is somehow exactly the same as the singular gay bar my nephew may or may not ever invite me to visit again, or is similar to a loud dive-bar (a largely unhealthy atmosphere for anyone which I suggest you not try to emulate regardless), don't expect me to hide my children away... Occasional "singles" events may be ok, which are designed for single people to meet each other. But sometimes single people have kids also.
postscript: After leaving Mormonism I searched for new groups to associate with. The groups mentioned above represent at least three I've tried so far. Nothing is absolutely cut & dry and I realize that anyone can start a group. But this is just something I've noticed after a.) leaving Mormonism, and now b.) having a kid.
In the old days the exmo conferences were more laid back. But I was shocked to see the more recent restrictions on kids - strange. The Unitarians can only tolerate kids at their meetings for the first few minutes. Why? What if I don't want my kid to be shuffled away to some other room, and what if I think all the kids should stay with their parents?
Also separately UUism is I've found not really friendly to Enlightenment values, since they embrace the "freedom to believe - in bullshit" via embracing paganism/fluff-a-muff-crazy-unfounded-views and they have a taboo against being critical of views which are otherwise crazy.
Well, anyway, I do have suspicions on exactly why things are the way they are. Discrimination against people who have kids - yes, it exists, apparently. And apparently those of us with kids have to fight for our rights to "come out" as straight people with kids as well... ===============================
I received a more cogent response from the president of Atheists of Utah regarding my concerns in this & the previous blog post. Here is what I have posted in reply:
---quote begins
Greetings,
<clip>
>I couldn't find any such post on any of our
>online presence locations. I saw you post this at
>several locations, but no "copy" of your blog post.
There was an original copy which I then deleted once it was copied in total to my blog, and then a link to the post was posted for convenience & consolidation.
The original queries which caused the original first concerns were posted in the announcement for the party itself. Regarding the discouragement of the attendance of children, as far as I could tell at least one board member and another attendee recommended (in rather strong terms) that children not attend - in the specific announcement area for the meeting. Then I heard nothing from anyone else, and no further feedback until now.
<clip>
The wheelbarrow is perhaps indicative of the target audience for the meeting in question. I had forgotten about Joel starting the wheelbarrow thing - perhaps once the meetings were moved to Richard T.’s house. Back when they were still at Joel’s house I don’t think such a thing was occurring. Clearly there’s a need to attract college age fratsters to atheist meetings (seriously & not in jest). They have a lot of dynamic energy worth tapping into.
Regarding music we never heard back whether there would be music at this particular party. But for us it’s a moot point at this point.
<clip>
>Most of the members in the group have children of various ages.
>There are only a few of the more than 150 of our gatherings where the exclusion
>of children is explicitly stated.
In the wake of my previous chats with people about these issues I came away with the impression that it was only the “ice cream socials” which were really welcoming for children.
<clip>
>It is always stated explicitly in the event description
>if it is recommended that children do not attend. For all other events,
>children are implicitly welcome.
Regarding group and committee suggestions, I’ll consider which options would be most fruitful. There’s certainly room to grow in either direction.
Well, in this case I don’t wish to impede anyone’s ability to have a raging good time with fellow youngsters without the perceived impediments or impositions the presence of a child may pose, since it was rather strongly previously made clear to me by others in the related forums that for the event in question that children not attend.
I realize the main announcement didn’t explicitly exclude kids, but like I say later conversations, which weren't merely completely unofficial (to my perception) made it clear to me that it would be unusual and not advisable to bring kids to this particular event.
Like I say there is a need for such events which are young-person-party-animal-wild-man-and-woman focused, so by all means have fun at the party - all those people who want to hook up with some hot atheist chick or dude. Just remember what may happen if you do:
I’ll see about amending my text & video blogs appropriately in response, now that I’ve finally received a more official response. I’m glad that you were finally able to get back. In this case I still believe the party in question is really more of one intended for young people to get more than a bit tipsy so that they can more effectively meet each other. And I shall take the advice of others and keep our son home. He’s too young for a baby sitter.
At the very least we’ll work on announcing events which may be of value to those with youngsters... Here’s some related ideas I found: http://www.meetup.com/cfi-sfn/
So by all means attend & have fun. We'll just stay home with our young kid - that's all...
Our kid is too young for a baby sitter. But to tell you the truth I wasn't just concerned about this group. There's another group which does have a more explicit "no kids" policy which is quite a bummer. So the conversation here was kind of a tipping point, for what it's worth.
Copy of a post made in an Atheists of Utah forum today. Posted here in part to keep track of my own thoughts & writings... Note that I did receive further feedback. See this newer post with key addendum notes and videos.
---------------- quote begins
Group suggestions:
Regarding the summer solstice party, it sounds as if it's really primarily a members-only singles event where children are not welcome (and by default, people who have infant children are not welcome either). I agree there's a need for there to be atheist singles groups. The Unitarians certainly aren't stepping up (& their church really isn't atheist, Enlightenment-values, and science & skepticism friendly). And in past years there was pretty much no options other than bar hopping & random chance. Now there's the Internet though & more opportunities to start groups.
As for this group, for the future may I suggest:
1. Having meetings/parties that don't have a membership requirement - but allow for donations via a donation box at the party.
2. Having parties that are pot lock, and simple.
3. Having parties that allow for alcohol to be brought, but not to raffle off a "wheelbarrow of booze" at such parties. We could also raffle off a "wheelbarrow of cigarettes," or a "wheelbarrow of hydrogenated oil" - with similar outcomes & value.
4. Having parties which do not have amplified music.
5. Having parties which do not explicitly or implicitly exclude people who happen to have engaged in sexual reproduction (eg: they have children).
I'm aware that anyone can host a party or start a group. "Official parties & events" should be more inclusive though, if your goal is to be inclusive. And I know that running an atheist group or any group requires a lot of work, and a partially-unfair personal investment of funds.
So without question there's a need for events focused on the need for single people to meet, and for dances which serve to meet that need, and so on, outside of the context of religious groups. I would just suggest being rather explicit about how events are labeled, so as to avoid confusion.
"This party is for single people who don't have young children, or for married people who don't have children or who only have older children - children who can be kept at home away from our party or event." Please add that label up front to events if it turns out that a given event deserves such a label.
There are inherent problems with an increased organizational structure being created. But I'd like to thank Zac, Joel, and Richard for their past work with creating groups and organizing things at various venues, restaurants, cafes, and houses. And Harald and Qian Qian. Our new son probably would not be here if it weren't for all these factors being present, and people who worked to organize atheist meetings in the past.
As for group dynamics & politics: I've seen the evolution of various groups, related to atheism and not. I know where I personally stand within the "movement" - pretty much with the left leaning anti-authoritarians, with occasional alliances with right leaning anti-authoritarians where necessary and fruitful... There is definitely an evolution that takes place with groups, depending on personality type and who happens to show up. Perhaps it's time for more such evolution now (making a note to myself also)...
What is the influence of Islam on Islamic women in America. At a school an adult employee covers up her rear end and tight jeans with a large pillow. Previously she allowed her sexy behind to be seen by all. Another Islamic female employee changes her head covering so that it covered even more of her face - closing the circle ever tighter. During Ramadan employees of the school are obliged to not ear their lunch in front of Islamists present, or in their building, for fear of offending them. W-T-F?
