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

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Tiny Robots Can Become Humping Lesbians Dreaming of Parthenogenesis

1. Tiny Robots Can Become Humping Lesbians Dreaming of Parthenogenesis

2. Old Fart Liberal Atheists sometimes can create life - Whodathunkit

3. Thanks to those who help us.

4. Speaking the truth.


Currently obtaining the newer Battlestar Galactica. My wife is very tired of Star Trek TNG. She liked Enterprise better. And DS9 may be way too boring I think though.

We need something much more sexy!

She also likes the Henson's Dinosaurs tv series. Thanks to me the S.L. library has copies in stock again of the latter item.

Hmmm. Farscape was another good one by the general Henson family. But it's a bit too, well, visceral for my wife's taste.

As for BSG, it's worth noting that we're also comprised of little robots of a sort - with apparently emergent properties once you get enough of them together.

Will machines eventually create robots that're more human like?

At present machines called humans naturally & rather easily produce more machines called humans. A uniquely fun, rewarding, & very challenging experience I recommend to those lucky enough to push forward with such an endeavor. Had to go to China to get mine - with the help of a man I met through a now defunct atheist group here who also has a Chinese wife. Worth it though.

Thanks long-time-atheists-in-Utah for that one, the old farts in the atheist community here who have zero to do with the new crowd. I wouldn't have a wife & kid if it weren't for you.

Sometimes the work of liberals does produce a baby. Amazing! Hmmm, I'll have to remember that. Oh, and there's the very nice gay man who helps us when we go on vacation. Yes, by hell that's true. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. Ok, thinking of him softens my view a bit perhaps.

Anyway, when the robots realize they're robots in fiction & stories, it's quite an experience for them.

What happens when humans realize the same?

The debate between Sam Harris & Daniel Dennett is one example:



Hey I like Harris when he does debates with theists. BUT on the issue of free will, I'm with Dennett.

IF you know you're made of tiny robots, and you think an MRI machine shows you DON'T have free will, will you be less, well moral? Yes, you will be less moral.

However if you know you're made of tiny robots, BUT you ALSO believe you have a reasonable amount of free will, you will be more moral.


By extension, belief in the Bible may make you more moral. Quite true. It may also make you less moral, especially during the time of the Spanish Inquisition.

Monty Python on the issue:

Monty Python on gay marriage:

The black atheists view:

----quote begins

Black Atheism vs. White Atheism

Black Atheism has nothing to do with the support or promotion of homosexuality, but White atheism does. Why do White atheists promote and support homosexuality? The answer lies in their European myths (Google Gay Zeus and Ganymede).

Homosexuality was routinely practiced by the Greeks. Their high god Zeus routinely had sexual contact with the mortal called Ganymede the Water Bearer proving that homosexuality and pedophilia was the highest standard of their culture. The ideas, concepts, customs and traditions that went into the making of the deity is a reflection of the culture of the people. Simply put, if you have no problem with homosexuality then you have no problem with deifying that concept into your ideal god.

Africans clearly had a problem with homosexuality because they never based a god around that idea and concept. They never based their culture or gods around that behavior. Another difference between Black Atheism and White Atheism —-White Atheism is based around Darwin and European science and culture. But, Black Atheism is based around the African symbol Khepera (Dung Beatle) and African science and culture. We follow the signs and symbols of African original culture, which clearly understood reproduction and evolution that is verified in the symbol of Khepera in the Nile Valley as early as 56,000 B.C. or earlier (reference Dr. Ben Jochannan and Dr. John Henrick Clarke).

Khepera is one of Africa’s oldest symbols of evolution and reproduction, which predates Darwin by thousands of years. Therefore, we don’t recognize Darwin as being the origin of the theory of evolution. To add, the law of reproduction clearly played out in the fertility figurines of the Black goddesses that you find first in Africa and then all over the world. White Atheists , however, do not acknowledge the law of reproduction. This is due to European science failure to officially recognize that the law of reproduction is the mechanism that causes evolution (gene mutation). Finally, the biggest distinction between Black atheists and White atheists is that we recognize racism and White supremacy.

----quote ends

Fascinating. I wonder how much of their views come from the fact that their ancestors were forced to come to America as slaves? Maybe some. Doesn't mean they aren't right on some points. Oh well, and they're made of tiny robots too.

Hey, if you're made of tiny robots, I suggest you try to make a new collection of tiny robots based on yourself and a friend. And, when our sun becomes 10% hotter causing the oceans to boil off, may I suggest that our distant children either re-engineer the sun or find another place to live.

We don't need to be defeatist narcissists like Lawrence Krauss. Or anally retentive a-holes like P.Z. Myers to represent the "atheist community" or the "atheist movement." But as with any movement you sometimes need a whole bunch of laxative to clear out the turds.

Thanks, Pinker, Dennett, and Hitchens, and the liberal atheist guy who helped introduce me to my wife. Also thanks to the gay guy who helps us go on vacations. Thanks, the Internet, for letting me speak even though some people want me to shut up.

Oh, and thanks Deseret News, you ARE good for something once in a while. Exposing the pedo that my gay nephew was friends with. Hey, if I'm ever friends with my gay nephew again, I'll be sure to tell him about how it was pretty stupid of him to befriend such a man. Live & learn. That's what I say. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Hey, it's human nature. Emergent activities of tiny robots. Whodathunkit.

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.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

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

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

Today I started watching a debate between David Silverman and Dinesh D'Souza:

Peter Singer:
 "...human babies are not born self-aware ... they are not persons ... the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
Silverman doesn't speak for all atheists. Atheism is not a religion per se, and we aren't required to join hands with everyone who may be classified as an atheist.

Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman

And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.

Singer is a fucking nut, speaking frankly...

More info:

I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.

There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...

Related links:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
''...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled..."

While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:

Pro-life atheists insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though they don't believe in God.

Hitchens on abortion:

So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?

It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.

Sam Harris quote:
“For nearly a century, the moral relativism of science has given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only universal framework for moral wisdom. As a result, the most powerful societies on early spend their time debating issues like gay marriage when they should be focused on problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, energy security, climate change, poverty, and failing schools.”
 and another from Harris:
"...the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion -- that great engine of ignorance and bigotry -- a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary -- because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried."

1-8-12 addendum:

Video commentary added:

And another blog post:

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

Friday, November 16, 2012

Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto, Michael Shermer, William Lane Craig, and unfortunate Templeton Foundation chumps...

More commentary and videos on the Templeton Foundation, Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto, Michael Shermer, William Lane Craig, and unfortunate Templeton chumps... November 11-12, 2012.

First video above:

Harry Kroto on Templeton. Michael Shermer blows a gasket. Further commentary.
Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto criticizes the Templeton Foundation. Michael Shermer blows a gasket and childishly demands an apology. My evaluation and response. November 11 to 12, 2012

Second video above:

Templeton, Craig, Shermer, and Rand - Nov. 12, 2012

Commentary on the Templeton Foundation, William Lane Craig, Michael Shermer, and Ayn Rand. Also about Steve Paulson of To the Best of Our Knowledge on Wisconsin Public Radio. November 12, 2012.

Related notes & phrases:
Conflating science & religion. Religious apology. Apologizing for genocide. Bible. God. Big bang. Cosmology. KCPW. KUER. Libertarianism. Libertarian. Obamacare. Memetic viruses. Camel's nose. Secularism. Veterans Day. 9/11 liberals. Afghanistan. Iraq. Hitchens. Burqas.

More info on Craig in a previous post:
more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig