Atheist scum

Unlike Nietzsche and other nineteenth-century critics of Christianity, today’s atheists are scum. A single example will illustrate my point.

Atheist Richard Dawkins, who has appeared in talk shows arguing that homophobia is bigotry, claims to be an evolutionary biologist. But Dawkins has never dared to take seriously the most elemental biological law of evolution regarding the future of his people: to grow and multiply—not even when whites are flagrantly violating that law and heading toward extinction.

The following is a brief exchange between Dawkins and a Palestinian Muslim. Keep in mind my recent post on Pride & Prejudice and Will Durant’s words, that Nature “sees that a nation with low birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile group”:

Muslim: Fix your women.

Dawkins: Fix your women! That’s not my business; that’s my women’s business.

Muslim: No, no! It is your business. When you take your women and dress them like whores in…

Dawkins: I don’t dress women! They dress themselves!

Muslim: I know but you allow it as a norm to let women on the street dressed like this. What’s going on with your society? What’s wrong with the…?

See the video of this exchange here. Dawkins could not tolerate more cognitive dissonance and, as you can see in the video, he simply faded out the audio of what the Muslim was trying to tell him.

Unless a white revolution reclaims Europe, the Muslims will teach the feminized western males of Eurabia how to grow a pair again, especially regarding our treatment of women. How sad that the Muslims have to teach us what we already knew when, unlike the atheists of today, we took the laws of biology very seriously.

This is Nietzsche’s critique of licentiousness under the guise of liberty taken from Twilight of the Idols, chapter “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man,” section 41:

Freedom which I do not mean.* In times like these, abandonment to one’s instincts is one calamity more… Today the individual still has to be made possible by being pruned: possible here means whole. The reverse is what happens: the claim for independence, for free development, for laisser aller is pressed most hotly by the very people for whom no reins would be too strict. This is true in politics, this is true in art. But that is a symptom of décadence: our modern conception of “freedom” is one more proof of the degeneration of the instincts.

(*) Adding a “not” Nietzsche is quoting here a popular German verse from a Max von Schenkendorf poem titled Liberty.

18 Comments

  1. Dawkins has a checkered history of pulling “slight of hands” in the intellectual honesty department.

    (link)

    • Dawkins’ behavior is not the point but what the Muslim said: reclaiming our women. Roger Devlin liked Matt Parrott’s recent piece at CC on the grim future of feminism. But I must take issue with a single Parrott line:

      but my goal is to end the gender war that feminists started, not turn the tables or settle any scores.

      I believe that before restoring the Austen world becomes possible after the West collapses, a short time of pay-back, lycanthropic transformations are in order. But of course: only the radical feminists will be fair game, not the home girls.

      • Behavior is always is a sign of what one will accept, what one desires, and is a measure of how one interacts toward peers and fellow citizens. Intellectual dissembling along with a general failure to confront legitimate intellectual arguments, especially when one presents oneself as an intellectual, demonstrates a world view that is either phony or subversive. Or perhaps both. From what you describe as “cognitive dissonance,” and from what happened at the site I linked to, it is clear that Dawkins cannot confront arguments that challenge his precious views. That was my point, and also a point you made.

        As far as “payback.” If it gets to that it may be. But then, we will experience the same distasteful situation that plagues every post-revolutionary regime. I doubt anyone, today, has much stomach for it, but frenzy is contagious. It is fun while it lasts, but sometimes the fun can turn in on the carnival. When retribution starts, one must always be careful, for it is easy to be incriminated unjustly, and the mob is always wrong. Always.

  2. Being an atheist at 14 is the sign of intellectual precocity. Still being an atheist at 50 is the sign of idiocy. This is an old Christian argument, but which is in fact fundamentally right. Dawkins is a “demi-savant” (to quote Le Bon), i.e. he’s too clever by half.

    I like my own metaphor of atheism as an incandescent magma that must be used to shape new continents, not left doing its job forever.

    • MacDonald said in a Jim Giles interview that he’s an atheist, but he’s not of the racially-suicidal kind that most of today’s atheists belong.

  3. Dawkins the man who denies a God but believes man descends from stardust in a mudpool transformed by lightning into double self combining transaminases with mirrored combinations in an order that is less likely to occur than retrieving a particule in the whole universe. The man that believes whales were fish that became mammals then got lungs, then got back in the water the got a hole in their head, or that birdsdevelopped wings first then started to fly. Yep without a divine plan you have to invent all sorts of tricks.

    • I do believe in evolution. But unlike Durant these modern atheists are not applying the ABC of biology to their own breed and race.

  4. “I do believe in evolution”.

    Do you believe it? You only believe in something where there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Do you believe 32 degrees is the freezing point of water.

    “Being an atheist at 14 is the sign of intellectual precocity. Still being an atheist at 50 is the sign of idiocy. This is an old Christian argument, but which is in fact fundamentally right. ”

    That’s an argument? That doesn’t mean anything.

    • What do you mean by “no evidence”? Creationist science?

      • Yes, You have to believe in God because you can’t prove He exists.
        You don’t believe in a fact. You know it.

        If I see someone with black hair, I don’t say I believe he has black hair.

      • Interesting site of an Atheist who likes an old fashioned patriarchy.and is against feminism.

        He is for very old fashioned sexual mores.

        http://www.coalpha.org/

  5. Just about all conservatives are liberal now.Conservatives are for a woman president or ceo. They are for women voting. They are for women in the workplace. They don’t care much about premarital sex. They get divorced and remarried. They are for artificial birth control.
    They don’t mind women wearing skimpy clothes.They are for integration and nondiscrimination. They don’t really care about miscegenation. They aren’t for keeping white countries white. They want to let in immigrants..

    • And that’s why the immigrants must hammer away the “conservatives” thru Islamic fundamentalism until whites start to grow again a spine.

  6. A country can survive low birthrates if: euthanasia is legalized, and resources not used to make babies are used to otherwise strengthen society. Legalization of euthanasia prevents the demography from going lopsided to old (which is used as an excuse for immigration) as well as opening the possibility of asymmetrical warfare against the conventionally religious. Severe wounds are more threatening if you don’t have the option of euthanasia.

    But the Muslim interviewed by Dawkins is a hypocrite. Muslims in the West vote for Leftist parties who promote feminism, abortion and birth control. When a non-Muslim attacks Leftists, the Muslims will defend the Leftist. Why else would Anders Behring Breivik need protected custody?

    Also, if one were to fix non-Muslim women, that is, punish non-Muslim women who have sex with Muslim men, the Muslim men again would freak out. The Muslim cannot invoke sluttery as a defense, as even a Muslim slut is off-limits to non-Muslim men.

  7. RE: CC Feminism.
    It’s hard to take some of their articles too seriously, considering they operate no differently than an 60’s advertising firm marketing to female smokers.

    As for the original topic. I’ve come to believe that only through the support of the last Patriarchal society left (in the West) is there any way out of this mess… and that’s assuming there is a way out.

    I do think the rise of Beppe Grillo is interesting though. Described as a web-fascist, a man with 6 kids who ‘has nothing to say to Italy’s 5 million immigrants’ with mostly educated male supporters… I suspect his model shows the most realistic way in which new movements can rise.

  8. If religious people hate Atheism so much, why do they fight each other at all? Why did they fight they for centuries, knowing that it could lead to Atheism?

  9. Atheists are insufferable. Even though they claim to be “non religious”, atheism is faith based – they can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, they just BELIEVE He doesn’t exist. However, they’re under the delusion that they’re perfect and oh-so intelligent; therefore, they think their opinions are objective facts rather than opinions. They feel the need to tell people how to live their lives because they think they’re so “enlightened” and “intelligent”. They’re even more annoying than overly persistent door-to-door missionaries, but unlike door-to-door missionaries, atheists are condescending, rude, nasty, and incredibly arrogant. From what I’ve seen, atheism is a religion (yeah, you heard me) in which people gather together to insult, harass, and even threaten everyone who disagrees with them and to pat each other (and themselves) on the back for being pretentious little bigots. They don’t believe in anything of value to them (well, really, they don’t believe in anything at all… Except that everything came from nothing and that there is no higher power, so you can do whatever the heck you want and not give a crap about how it affects other people), and yet they get all butthurt if you criticize their beliefs or make jokes about their beliefs (take a look at how they reacted to Dane Cook’s “Atheist Sneeze” skit, for example). Also, most atheists are incredibly misogynistic and racist. Why would anyone want to be a part of that? Why would anyone want to hang out with a bunch of self-centered, delusional jerks? Atheism is BEYOND stupid, and atheists make me sick.

    • Because of that post, you’re either my favorite commenter here or the only here who isn’t me.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: