Showing posts with label jordan peterson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jordan peterson. Show all posts

Monday, September 25, 2017

An Open Letter to Harald

Hi Harald,

Hope things are going well. I wanted to thank you for making my family possible.

As I was leaving the Mormon Church I was going to university taking physics courses. At that time I thought that 'science and reason' had all the answers. Eventually I sought out atheist and 'humanist' groups, and I found a group you and I used to be members of: Utah Atheists, which later changed their name to Salt Lake Valley Atheists (SLVA), and SLVA was later dissolved and unilaterally absorbed into the separate Atheists of Utah.

Reason & skepticism means being willing to see if our beliefs are falsifiable. But atheist groups do not operate as engines of reason & skepticism. My first exposure to this fact happened as I was attending meetings with you for SLVA.

During one meeting for SLVA, Atheists of Utah existed as a separate entity from SLVA. SLVA was the longer running local atheist group. A president of Atheists of Utah (A of U) was at the SLVA meeting with his pro-life atheist girlfriend. At the SLVA meeting in question, the potential for a merging of SLVA with A of U was discussed. During the meeting members of SLVA stated that a merging was not possible because the girlfriend of the A of U president was pro-life, and it was stated that SLVA had always been 'pro-choice.'

This whole observed experience seemed strange to me at the time. Shouldn't the words 'reason' and 'skepticism' mean that we have an open exchange of ideas? But in this case a pro-life atheist was quickly booted and a merging of two atheist groups was rejected also because of the pro-life stance of a woman in the other group.

A few years later SLVA was unilaterally absorbed into A of U - SLVA was taken over by A of U and essentially simultaneously dissolved. This happened after a.) the past president with his pro-life girlfriend moved out of state and they had a baby together, and b.) A of U was taken over by Gay-Pride festival attendees (local Stonewall Center people).

While the pro-life-girlfrinded A of U president was still president of A of U, he made the mistake of doing membership outreach during 'Pride,' and this then resulted in A of U being completely taken over by 'Pride' participants.

Your wife helped me find my wife. Yes the fact that I have a wonderful family now, is thanks to the efforts of your wife. So thanks to her and you for that.

You were a 'Utah Atheists' person, a group dominated largely by those over 60. SLVA continued in that vein. Whereas the history of A of U differs a bit, in that yes there is now a lot of young people who attend, but mostly all people who love 'Pride' type events.

What is Atheists of Utah? It's a social group for Pride attendees and nothing more. If A of U were about science & reason, they wouldn't boot conservatives. Similarly if SLVA were a group whose focus were science & reason & skepticism, they wouldn't have booted conservatives & refused a merging with A of U back in the days when A of U was headed by an atheist man who had the audacity to have a pro-life girlfriend.

Regardign SLVA, at another meeting I recall a libertarian was invited to speak. At the time of that particular meeting I was still an economic-leftist. Thus during the Q&A I argued vociferously with the libertarian atheist speaker.

With SLVA, they didn't outright boot the rare libertarian, but libertarians were not really welcomed with open arms. The libertarian man was treated, by myself and others at SLVA, rather like a turd in a swimming pool.

After starting a family, I observed that my wife was basically a social conservative, with zero connection to the Bible or Book of Mormon or Quran. Pro-traditional-marriage. Skeptical of outlier pride. It was an eye opening experience.

As is normal for some, the process of starting a family naturally caused my own social views to move in the conservative direction.

Meanwhile I was still attending A of U weekly coffee chats. By this time A of U had been taken over by the Pride attendees and the pro-life girlfriended past president of A of U had moved out of state.

At one Pride-lover-run A of U coffee chat, a foul mouthed lesbian woman bemoaned how she didn't like 'breeders.' I was surprised by the crass and stupid crafting of such a response. Didn't she appreciate how she came into existence? 1.2 billion years of sexual evolutionary history, and then this type of anti-life anti-'breeding' crap comes out of the mouth of people like this foul crass woman.

But her anti-children response was not a one-off. For example for an A of U house party we were explicitly told that the party was 'not children-friendly.'

Back in the days when A of U wasn't run by Pride-Stonewall people, children were always welcome at the A of U parties. But regarding the non-reproductive outliers who love Pride & Stonewall, kids are definitely not on their list of priorities. Thus the 'Pride' incarnation of A of U was overtly anti-children and anti-reproductive-family.

The final straw with A of U came when I told them I liked Duck Dynasty. This stated heresy triggered all the social justice warrior (SJW) inclinations of the A of U leadership. A public heresy trial was conducted for myself on the A of U public facebook forum and I was booted and banned from their forum by their leadership.

So Harald, I voluntarily left the Mormon Church. But, I was booted from one in-person atheist group for my social views. And in subsequent months & years, I've also been booted from many other online atheist/humanist/naturalist groups.

With reactionary-leftist run atheist groups, there are definitely all the trappings of religion present. Dogma. Doctrine. Heresy trials. Excommunications.

I don't think you've been keyed into a lot of this history.

After being booted from A of U, I encountered an ex-Muslim atheist cartoonist who appreciates Ayn Rand. I observed the left's response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. I observed what happened with the Draw Mohamed Cartoon Art Contest in Garland, Texas, how two Muslims wanted to shoot up the conference, and how the cultural left wanted to ban the conference and blame the victims and conference organizers for the violence - rather than to blame the human spirit destroying cult of Islam. In the wake of Hebdo & Garland, I observed that mostly only libertarians supported freedom of speech.

In the wake of Islamic attacks the cultural left wanted to kiss Mohamed's ass. In response I started to take a first look at the libertarian views on economic issues.

The ex-Muslim atheist cartoonist I referenced keyed me into valuing the general Republican field for the 2016 presidential election. And I discovered other people, such as Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, and Dave Rubin.

Dave Rubin introduced me to Milo Yiannopoulos. It was Milo who first introduced me to the value of having Trump as president.

I know you remember Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was the one who first redpilled me regarding the corrupt raping nature of the Clintons. And later I learned of the pay to play whoring and rape enabling ways the Clintons, via the Clinton Cash book by Peter Schweizer and the similarly named graphic novel by Chuck Dixon.

Before the 2016 election, I didn't know much about Trump. Trump didn't have to run. He could have stood by and just let corrupt rape enabling pay to play whoring Hillary slide into office. Instead, he ran, and valiantly so.

Trump apparently wants to save America from the globalist raping whores who want to quash the American dream.

Now, today, I am basically a center right social & economic conservative. Pro-life. Pro-family. Pro-children. Pro-true history. Pro-true-evolution. Pro-true-science. Anti-chosen-forced-outlier. Pro-freedom-of-speech.

It's true that my wife, and my new family, helped me see the evolved & natural value of social conservatism, and social conservatism's power to help humans thrive and be happy.

In my transition away from leftism, there were a few other people who helped in addition to my wife.

They are:

Jordan B. Peterson
Gad Saad
Stefan Molyneux
Some of the people Dave Rubin & Joe Rogan interview on their youtube shows
Steven Crowder
Friend of Hitchens Dinesh D'Souza.

So Harald, as a friend, I've tried to share some of this info with you. During the 2016 election season, I started emailing you more regularly.

Remember that for many years, you would send me general broadcast emails once a month or more on political issues, always advocacting for the leftist side on all issues. But, when I finally returned the favor and started emailing you regular with new info I had found as noted above, you became angry.

In response you to my first few emails after coming out as a conservative you send me an email stating that you would auto-forward all of my emails sent to you back to me. My response to this stonewall & 'facepalm' was to naturally and reasonably take offense. Years of friendship, and helping me find my wife, and many dinners and in person visits, straight out the door when I revealed to you that I had essentially redpilled and become a conservative.

Harald you sleep during the day, and you wake up at about 4:30pm just so that you can watch Mr. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. You refuse to join Facebook and other social media. You run a legacy website which mostly no one visits now. And you have chosen to have zero exposure to other sources of information beyond whatever it is that MSNBC shovels into your brain on a daily basis.

We still come over to your house on occasion, perhaps once a year now instead of once every two weeks or so as in the past.

When I come over to your house now, I cannot discuss what's really on my mind & what I'm thinking now about life the universe and everything.

Functionally, you have treated me exactly the way Mormon families often treat their dissident members & dissident children: with angry and often a booting out the door. Muslims do this also to their dissident family members. Scientologists also. And yep atheists too. Religious-style booting, to a T.

Functionally, atheist groups you've been a part of treat dissidents who differ with the general group on social or economic issues, they treat such people with disdain and heresy trials and excommunications. Atheist groups act exactly like religions do. Tow the party line, or you're out!

Thus Harald, I question the veracity and validity of the 'leftist project,' as exemplified by:

1. Social Justice Warriors (SJW).
2. The Democrat Party.
3. The Unitarian Universalist Church, which is nothing more than an SJW outlier church and a magnet for reactionary-leftists with hurt feelings about the ultra-right.
4. The Stonewall Centers nationwide, which are denialist cults regarding human nature.
5. Humanist groups, which are seas of grey hair where children are very rare.
6. Atheist groups, which are not really interested in honesty regarding the human condition.

Religion couches evolved traits. This is a damn hard thing for an ex-religionist with a chip on his shoulder to admit.

The 'answer' to the ultra-right isn't ultra-leftism. Rather it's just advocacy for increased honesty.

Yes there are no literal gods. But without god not everything is permitted.

Harald, I thank you because your actions led to a path which then allowed my family to exist. But overall I think my family exists precisely in spite of the anti-children anti-family culture present within leftist run atheist groups (and within general cultural leftism), and not because of any particular pro-family stance of such groups.

A gold star on the forehead of those who're the very best at not having children. This is what the cultural left is about today: slow motion suicide.

As my family was growing, you did somewhat playfully accuse me of having 'Mormon values,' and of wanting more children because I was 'still a closet Mormon.'

No Harald, I'm not a closet Mormon. I'm an 'out of the closet' 1.2 billion year evolved inherently-reproductive sexually-dimorphic sexual-animal, merely doing what I am rather thankfully inclined to do, and what I believe humans thrive best via doing: promoting life!

The abusively-permissive leftist clamors for one-sided stilted 'joys' and pleasures of non-reproductive sex, without recognizing why sex exists in the first place: to have children.

The hippies thought they were just so revolutionary, with all the let it all hang out attitudes and atmosphere. They were noobs and naive fools Harald. They didn't understand that for all of our past history, sex equaled children period.

Your average Whole Foods shopper, who values 'organic' food, should value what human nature really is and why it exists in the first place.

If atheist groups were about reason & skepticism, they'd invite with open arms economic and social conservatives! But they don't!

Religion is do damn natural, that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their usually-leftist reactionary social agenda, can't help but form de facto religions, with all the trappings of religion, and pretty much zero reason, zero honesty, and zero true skepticism.

Harald I say:

Go Trump.

Go Sebastian Gorka.

Go Stephen K. Bannon.

Go Breitbart.

Go Jordan B. Peterson.

Go Milo Y.

Go Gad Saad.

And may the family which you helped create, in spite of your stances & views & history & memberships, continue to grow and thrive. Thanks Harald.




Articles relating to my journey to conservatism:
Harald Illig

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.