Category: News and Views
Hey everyone.
Yes, it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything. This is mainly due to me being busy with college. I’m in the fall semester of the second year of the Addiction Counseling Program which is going well. I’ll be on break after next week for almost a month and so I can get some reading done that isn’t school-related. LOL. I can still do that, but not for long since I’m reading a lot of class-related stuff, but that’s okay. So now I’m back with a new topics page that I’ll try to do more with posting to than with the other ones.
The title of this page as you’ve probably read is simply “The World as It Is” and that’s not accidental. While I’ll clearly have my own views on here, I’ll give them with as much proof and as much evidence as possible or it’ll at least be the truth about things as I can determine it to be. I’ll also give views about the world as it actually is or sometimes as I can determine it to be rather than hiding behind slogans and clichés. Also, the title for this board is one I borrowed from a book of the same name by the author Chris Hedges. He’s one of my role-models and an intellectual of great integrity who has contributed much to the understanding of issues going on both domestically and over-seas. I wish more people had regard and respect for what he has to say. So I’ll be posting things when time permits and I hope people enjoy or at least take away something to think about when reading this page.
James
My Review of The New Atheist Threat
Tuesday, November 28 2017
Over Thanks Giving Break, I read the book titled “The New Atheist Threat” by the author C.J. Werleman. He’s an atheist and has his own podcast titled “Foreign Object and has spoken at many events. He’s the author of a few other books including “God Hates You: Hate Him Back” and “Jesus Lied: He was Only Human”. Werleman also wrote a book about the Koran that takes a more balanced approach to the subject matter. This is part of what began his journey away from The New Atheist Movement to which he belonged for several years.
In C.J. Werleman’s “The New Atheist Threat”, he talks about The New Atheist Movement who’s headed up by the late Christopher Hitchens who wrote “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”, Sam Harris who wrote “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason”, Richard Dawkins who wrote “The God Delusion” and Daniel Dennett who wrote “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”. These authors and their books put forth an idea of Atheism that is radically different than the simple belief of there being no God. The New Atheists not only believe in no God, but they also teach based on the writings of the above mentioned authors that religion is dangerous and must be destroyed. They speak especially coldly regarding Muslims and their faith. Werleman speaks of this part of the movement especially and cites Reza Aslaan especially as well as citing Chris Hedges and his book “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” which is now retitled “When Atheism Becomes Religion”.
These “New Atheists” claim to have found the path to our collective salvation through science and human reason which will lead us by implication to a new world which has been made perfect or at least better by way of scientific tools, scientific thought and by humanity’s ability to reason. The idea is that as we as humans have advanced technologically, so too has our morality. Our morality has had edited out of all of the dark aspects of human nature such as the lusts for violence and the urges to kill with which we’re confronted when in the right circumstances. This belief is clearly dangerous, for to believe this, one has to start from the notion that evil within them as been over-come and that it lies only within “The Other”. Who might be the other? In this context, it’s people such as Muslims, Christians and those who don’t subscribe to the worldview of Dawkins, Harris and their other fellow authors. Werleman speaks of all of this and talks about The New Atheists and their externalization of evil they use in order to demonize those with whom they disagree. He also goes on to talk about how Sam Harris in particular calls for a nuclear first strike against the Middle East to solve our problems with Terrorism which Harris talks about in his book “The End of Faith”.
Werleman also goes on to talk about how many in The New Atheist Community have grown to hate him for that which he stands now. He’s received threats from several people on Twitter along with being dismissed as a plagiarist by the likes of Sam Harris. What also makes the book good is not only him showing just how dangerous this movement can be, he also talks at length in one paragraph about the plagiarism allegations. He admits that what’s meant by plagiarism in this case is that when writing several articles for different magazines, he through accident and carelessness that was unintentional, forgot to cite his references and sources. He admitted to this at the time he was found out and apologized then as well as in the book about which I’m currently writing now. He didn’t make excuses and didn’t try to say that people where misquoting or taking his writing out of context. This is clearly the actions of a man who has integrity and a deep sense of morality and a deep devotion to justice and to the truth.
When Werleman talked of his ideas of Atheism he has now, he talked about how in the past few years he began to see more of how The New Atheists sounded no different than the people they attacked when writing about The Christian Right, another mass movement that has different expressions of ideology, but are equal to The New Atheists in terms of both having views made up of Islamophobia. Werleman has reclaimed his view of Atheism in which he believes in no God, but is willing to work and stand along-side the religiously inclined. In this way, he’s more or less become equal to the author and Atheist Alain Debotton who has about as much disgust and dislike for The New Atheist Movement as does Werleman.
In the final analysis, “The New Atheist Threat” is a book that has a respect for nuance, a respect for the views of others and a deep humility that is missing from most people who call themselves intellectuals in today’s age be they religious, Atheist or any form of secular. The book also shows respect for the intellectual views of Reza Aslaan, Chris Hedges and Alain Debotton and allows these three authors to have their own voices heard which is important given the dark times in which we currently live right now. I give the book five out of five stars.
Wow, that sounds like a very heavy read. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if you took religion out of the equasion. Would the world really be better? Would it be worse? Would it just be the same, just with different agendas perpetuating the same problems we face now? I'm not one who has red up on any of the people mentioned in your review, and thus don't have much of a leg to stand on, but I suggest that any blatent purge of an entire group of thought doesn't sound all that different from the religious zealots who pretty much call for the same thing. I don't think religion, be it true or false is necessarily any worse than any other ideals. Atheism isn't in itself a problem either. But there are certainly atheists that could, were their wishes fulfilled, make this world far worse. There are zealots on both sides, just as there are zealots in politics, sports, fassion and entertainment. Anything can become a god to someone, just as anything can breed malice and violence. The problem really arises in the lengths someone will go to live their ideals, and how they push those ideals on others. Wars are faught over religion. To me who is more or less religious, that whole concept is silly. But people have faught wars about politics, resources, and over people. Basically, humans don't need a lot of reason to fight each other. Religion does a lot of good as well. It helps people through difficult times and breeds a sense of mortality, hope and compassion in a world whose morality seems to be crumbling. I'm not talking about what's a sin and what isn't, who's having sex and who isn't. I'm talking about the violence, greed, spite and enmity we see on the news every single damn day. Religion, whether it's a crutch or a truth gives us something to believe in when it becomes hard to believe in the world. It's true that to some, that might be a false hope, and a crutch. But I can never subscribe to the belief that all religion is evil. That would be like saying those without religion are evil. it just doesn't work that way. Are there religions that breed more problems than others? Yes, of course. And that's where the danger lies. For when you condemn such a religion to the proverbial sword, you condemn those who have esentially been molded by that religion. Esentially, extremism in any form can be dangerous. Live and let live needs to be more widely practiced, except in cases where it genuinely causes real harm to the people around it. But then that raises the question, who defines real harm anyway?
The least religious countries are happier, have less violent crime, alcoholism, teen suicide, etc.
Which countries are those? is that speculation or a proven fact?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies
Doctrinal religions, including atheism, can be dangerous as original thought and questioning are strongly discouraged. I have no problem with people of faith, I have no problem with people of reason, I have no problem with people of philosophy. I do have a problem with people of any of these persuasions when they become dependent on inflexible doctrine, cease to think for themselves, and attempt to bring others to their views by force. Believe what you want, but leave me alone.
An interesting article, but I still maintain it is the people and way of life who determine such factors, not necessarily whether one is religious or not. Strict subjugation,ostrosizing and abuse probably play a greater factor than the presence of religion. And those things can exist whether religion is present or not. This writer is clearly anti-religious. I'll take it on faith that they did their research and the stats are sound, even though I feel like stats aren't always trustworthy. But It's hard to fully trust a bias source without taking the time to do my own research. I've seen first hand both the good, and bad that comes out of religion, and at least in my unstatistical experience, it's always the way people follow the religion that is the cause of the problem.
I think in cases like Scandinavia, they probably got tired of Christianity being forced on them by outsiders for so many centuries.
Interestingly, Scandinavia has had its own long-standing belief system in place. Not sure how things are there now mind you. Still, Who wouldn't? Nobody should have anything forced on them. That's really part of the problem. Though having someone talk to you about said beliefs and forcing you to adopt them are two very different things.
Always found the ancient Norse paganism interesting, and of course that's tied with my love of metal music.
it is quite interesting. Ever red Norce Mythology by Neil Gaiman? An interesting compilation of some of the mythology. Not sure how anyone can find that less silly than anything the Christians or any other religions believe, but it's still very interesting and makes for great fiction backdrops. Same to with Greek mythology which I actually find a little more interesting.
My way of looking at this is somewhere between the extreme of the "new atheism" and the absolute live-and-let-live that Remy is talking about.
Is religion evil? On its own, no it's not. At the absolute worst, it's trying to get people to believe in a thing that isn't demonstrably real. Religion asks for faith, and in most cases demands a great many logical leaps to cover all of its bases. I am of the opinion that this kind of behaviour is somewhat dangerous, because if people are encouraged to ignore logic and reason in this important area, they may do it in other areas as well. This can already be demonstrated by things such as bigotry, the anti-vaccination argument, anti-choice rhetoric and the like. A good deal of religious doctrine is based on the idea of "do this because God said so, and God exists, even if we can't actually prove it". This can have a trickle-down effect into everyday life. And this can harm others. I trust I don't have to demonstrate how?
Organized religion also has a habit of sticking its nose into places where it doesn't belong. As an atheist I can never completely get away from it, and that bothers me. No, I am not being constantly badgered to join a church or to repent my sins or whatnot, so that's all right. But here, just as one example. I would be expected to say "so help me God" if I swore an oath in court. My own country's national anthem says "God keep our land glorious and free". And on a less personal note, you have things like Harry Potter books being banned for teaching about witchcraft, and creationism being taught right alongside evolution, and all sorts of other things. The separation of church and state really isn't happening. Laws and ideals still have very heavy religious overtones, and it's much worse in other countries.
So do I want religion to disappear completely? No, not necessarily. But I think I want a world where religion couldn't exist, because:
1. I'd prefer a world where religion did not directly affect laws and standards even for nonreligious people, and
2. I'd like a world where people mostly followed reason instead of going with some nebulous belief or other. Every time I hear of a child suffering because their parents' religious views stop the child from being treated, every time I hear of a woman being leaned on heavily by a health professional to go to church insteaed of getting the abortion she feels she needs to have...that, and half a hundred other things make me angry, and they need to stop happening.
I will absolutely not lay all evil at the feet of religion, not by a longshot. But I think it is high time that religion, as a whole, took a good long look at itself and realized the harm it is doing, in some cases purely by existing. I do not believe that morality is based on religion, and I do not believe that a world without religion would soon devolve into absolute anarchy, but nor do I believe that all religious people are mindless, illogical zealots out to hurt people either.
Basically, I'll be happy enough if religion can sort of clean itself up a bit, and take its proper place instead of always trying to expand. I'll be happy if we atheists can live alongside religious people without there being constant judgments and pointed looks being traded back and forth over silly reasons. I'm not at all prepared to be violent about this, though, and have never been in favour of a militant atheist takeover or any such silliness. If (big if) we're going to change the world by degrees, bombing the Middle East or hurting religious people is absolutely not the way to get there.
I'd be good with all of that. It really does need to clean itself up. There's far too many of them all clammering for the same space, preaching ideas that are just different enough to make them stand out. And that's not even counting all those smaller offshoots that crop up. I don't take exception to stuff like "god keep our land" or "so help me God". I didn't even before I became "religious". I figure it this way, If god's real, then the words aren't empty. If he/she/they aren't, then it's just a word with little power. I mean people use God and "Jesus Christ" as an explitive all the time, and for we religious types "that" isn't going away any time soon. Some of us even do it ourselves. I'm not really sure how that's much different. I think so many people are far too easily offended by so many things. It's like everything that happens is a personal insult against them.
Even Atheist use these terms, or explanatories. They don’t believe in God, so how does it get in to their speech?
Upbringing I’d say.
I stand with Remy on this issue.
Religion, or the lack of would be just as bad as a world of Atheism. People have a need to rule, and ruling means follow what I believe, or you are wrong.
Pagans did it, mythologist did it, even wicking want others to be as they are.
You get rid of a dog and get a pig. You still have an animal.
I am not actively offended by the anthem or the swearing-in-court thing, just so we're clear. I'm a little annoyed by it. Whereas my choice to use a religiously-based curse is mine, my swearing on a bible in court really isn't. I, personally, don't believe in god, so I'm not worried about the words meaning anything. It's sorta the principle of the thing. Why are we making people use the symbolism of any one religion? It not only nails us atheists, but potentially hits people of other non-Christian persuasions as well. And the argument of our countries being based on these religions is...well, kind of silly. America was founded in a time when the fathers were at least nominally in favour of slavery, after all, but we all know how wrong that is.
As far as offense goes, in general? Yes, it's perspective. I'm not mortally injured if someone says they'll pray for me, or when someone asks me not to use a particular turn of phrase around them. But I'm not the main target here, and I have every right to get outraged on behalf of people who have been beaten, raped, subjugated, harassed, ostracized and even killed in the name of one religion or other.
There's a really good book I've read called "Why are you Atheists So Angry?" by Greta Christina, I think. I didn't need convincing but it's a damn fine book even for a believer to read, in order to understand, if they wish, a little more on the atheist perspective, and why it is some of us get upset at what we see, and why we get even more upset when the first thing we're told is that we don't have a right to be outraged.
Because the legal system understands many people believe in, or are afraid of God, they've use it.
However, swearing on a Bible, even for the religious is worthless sometimes.
You use the idea of being dumb, ignorant, and such to get people to think as you do.
Reading some of your books gives me this idea.
Believing in God is a fairytale
So, you see, swearing on a Bible is just a ploy of guit same as being called stupid.
Smile.
But again, Wayne, that isn't the point. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in God. Why am I being asked to use a religious icon in order to somehow validate my words? Why would a stink be made if I refused to swear on that Bible in the first place? When I was a child, why was it that I might get in trouble if I refused to sing the national anthem because it upholds a Christian message, however small and ultimately meaningless?
These are generally pretty small potatoes in the big picture. They aren't worth losing sleep over. But they are issues, they are real, and we atheists don't need them soft-pedalled, please and thanks. If I am misunderstanding you, please explain how.
Great, so the author’s learned not to be loud-mouthed. The world is full of them and could use more thoughtful quiet people. I have always been fascinated by the way people evolve in their beliefs. While some people can be as inconstant as the waves of the sea, others stagnate from lack of exposure to different ideas.
I think for many religious groups atheism, that is, a pure lack of belief in god, is a radical position. Atheists don’t need to hang a sandwich sign from their shoulders with “god is dead” scrawled on either side and march through the center causing an uproar. Christians don’t have to go about trying to be a 21st-century Noah or John the Baptist in Sin City. There will always be controversy even if the ones drawing the attention are meek lambs. This has been the case since the time doubt began to plague humankind. A person can try to reason things out with someone whose position is diametrically opposed to theirs only to be suspected and reviled. You can witness this as a bystander almost on a daily basis riding in public transportation. Sometimes The desire to defeat your opponent defeats the purpose of public discourse, which should be to learn from each other.
And I’m not only referring to the god debate. I think the reason for all the fighting and bickering is an ethical one, combined with the majority of people’s most primitive fears such as death. The problem isn’t just our views on evil and whether it truly exists. Poverty, discrimination and whatever other injustices you can imagine rarely factor in the “cosmic consciousness” (to borrow an old term) until people start being affected locally and individually. I’ve been reading about the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar whose very current plight is unnoticed by the world. The ironic thing is merely a few decades ago Josef Mengele and his pals perpetrated some atrocities over which today’s generation expresses shock and can’t comprehend how it happened. Those who are trained, know and truly understand such crushing problems can’t figure out the correct way to sit down and have a constructive discussion. I’m sure we’ve all asked ourselves why throughout the centuries none of these problems has been solved.
It would be really simple to argue that the root of the problem is we’re all human. Perhaps I’m mistaken but I believe most religious scriptures say that classifying certain behaviors as moral and immoral is unique to humans and is a practice we’ve always been experts at. I don’t believe scripture says that god considers one type of sin worse than another; I think religion teaches god is holy and fallen creation irreparably flawed by original sin. We say stealing food to stave off hunger isn’t a crime but to a holy god even in trying to survive we will always fall short of the mark. We excuse one action and condemn another, and in the process hope to make ourselves superior. And then this is where divisiveness comes into play. So-called enlightened people say by default we know that commiting murder for pleasure makes us inhuman, but then they turn around and deem euthanasia an act of cruelty. Some people would argue that to know there is a homeless family emaciated and dying somewhere in your city and you do nothing about it makes you and the society you live in complicit in their murder. It becomes a Herculean task to think of helping a stranger.
I don’t deny that powerful environment and internal/biological forces fuel most of the world’s problems. Maybe at one time religion was supposed to provide meaning and purpose in this world, but somewhere along the way it seems to have failed. Will technology and advancements in science help us progress and become more enlightened? Hopefully, but when we have braniacs like Stephen Hawking warning that artificial intelligence will destroy humanity, such hopes are dampened. And just a matter of hours ago, voices straight out of the FSU said the great US of A is bloodthirsty with regard to the Norks. Everybody says these threats aren’t real, not yet at least. If Jesus is known as the greatest philanthropist in history - the lover of humanity, I think he’d have difficulty not siding with the most misanthropic amongst us who say humans are crazy and self-destructive.
Look at televangelists and Hollywood superstar atheists alike. They’re in it to win it, to enrich themselves by giving the masses what they want. For fame they write books, debate in packed stadiums and so on. Honestly, how does any of that crap help the “sitchiation.” Their fans justify their lifestyle by claiming their words are intellectually edifying and so render them all the applause. But the few in both camps who can create true lasting change and find solutions have always had a big job and never asked for recognition. So, yes I agree it’s great a promoter of dangerous ideas has had a change of heart, and maybe his example can inspire others to continue in the same direction combating such ideas. But let’s hope we don’t become part of a world where we congratulate a man who’s seen the light and joined forces with the very ones he formerly targeted, and writes a book about it.
As for atheism, whatever ism and the world’s modern problems, no none of this is new; it’s all been a part of Earth’s playground for ages and won’t be eradicated in the immediate future. So when in the next decade an atheist decides to write a book, for sure a multitude will hear and follow accordinngly. A new pastor will show up in some unknown town and become a local celebrity.
Maybe the title to this thread should’ve been the world as it’s always been. On and on, this is how it’ll always be, this is how the world has always been.
I have been trying to combat pre-flight jitters so if anyone gets offended by this post, I apologize. If you feel that somehow I've managed to insult your hero or brand, well, what can I say. excrement happens. But what I’ve written here isn’t directed at anyone personally. I’m feeling a bit scatter-brained and haven’t really checked for accuracy and word-choice. Plus, these are some grim times we’re living in a-here, so I think a little realism (or pessimism) is okay.
Historians can’t seem to agree but plenty believe that thousands of years ago, the Canaanites sacrificed to Moloch, their infants are described as wearing grotesque grinns as the flames consumed them. And now welcome to the 21st century, this report just in: 11/30/2017, ISIS releases video of Lebanese pilot being burned alive. Nope, some things never change.
If I could edit my posts, I would've added this to the one above.
May 2018 be a good one.
Because Shep, the people in power set up these things. If your set were in power, they'd say, no you can't even pray.
Now as to swearing on the Bible, you are now asked, but you can now refuse on the grounds it wouldn't mean anything to you because you are a...
Correction: Post 22 on Saturday, 02-Dec-2017 6:12:00 incorrectly says the nationality of the pilot was Lebanese. In fact, he was Jordanian.
Correction: Post 23 on today 22:52:27 incorrectly says post 22. In fact, the mistake is in post 20.
I reflected on the title as well and thought it should be something like this: The World
Perceived Through the Lens of Religion Versus Atheism, although it seems like we are
leaning more in the direction of Atheism. I will have to check out this book. I haven’t
come across what I guess we can call a moderate stance of Atheism. I am very familiar
with Dawkins, less so with Sam Harris but I have read one of his other books called
Waking Up.
Hey Everyone.
I’ve been off on Christmas Break and then got back to college about three weeks ago. I’ve been busy with classes ever since. I’m back with a couple of posts.
Enjoy.
James
This is from a report I wrote for my English Composition 2 Class back in 2017.
Though from a year ago, I’m posting this since I believe that it’s relevant to the times in which we’re living now and because of who our fake president is in office currently.
The Danger of Milo Yiannopoulos
Hey Milo, You Can Shove Your Hollow Apology. Francis Maxwell and reposted by The Young Turks. The Huffington Post. Friday, February 24, 2017.
There are many people who speak their views publicly here in America. Some are on the liberal side; some are on the conservative side, but regardless of which side one is on, these people publicly voice their views and they have that right thanks to freedom of speech under the constitution of The United States. Some of this speech can be beneficial, such as that of Chris Hedges who warns to not fall deeply in to worship of institutions such as corporations and other businesses so that one forgets who one is. Michael More has released documentaries to warn of the danger of what the powerful can do to others in our country. On the right, there are people such as Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who speak of personal responsibility, freedom of choice and protection of freedom of speech. There is one though who takes things in the name of protection of freedom of speech to a further level than Coulter, O’Reilly or Limbaugh. That’s the public speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. He’s been a member of Breitbart News, a public speaker at colleges and a provocateur in public circles as well as a tech reporter in England where he’s written about technology in magazines such as The Kernel. He’s generated much controversy along the way due to some of his views and it’s caused people in society to wonder just how far one should go in the name of freedom of speech.
Milo Yiannopoulos was born Milo Hanrahan on October 18, 1984 in Kent, England and was brought up in that area for most of his early life. He started out in journalism when he wanted to investigate the issue of women in the field of computing in 2009. From there, he began attempting to start up different magazines one of which deals with issues in technology mainly about the field of computers. Most know him though from his speaking engagements at different college campuses in which he has made comments degrading people in the GLBT Community, mocked a transgendered student at The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and appeared on a couple of episodes of the podcast program titled The Joe Rogan Experience. In the most recent of these episodes, he mocked the stereotypical lisp with which some men speak, implying that this is the usual way in which gay men speak. In the same episode, Yiannopoulos dismissed the idea of there being oppression of women, African-Americans and also went on to voice disbelief in there being a “Rape Culture”. In other media appearances, he said that boys who’ve been bullied need to toughen up. Yiannopoulos recently resigned from Breitbart News due to his endorsement of relationships and sex between 13-year-old boys and older men, saying that it could be a positive experience for the boys and that there are some boys who are 13 who are mature enough so that they could give consent to sex with adult men and women. The book publisher Simon & Schuster also canceled its book deal with him in which they were set to publish his book Dangerous which is his autobiography set for a release date for possibly March of this current year. His invitation to speak at The Conservative Political Action Conference was also revoked after these comments. Though Yiannopoulos has apologized for the comments, people aren’t so quick to forgive him and he then went on in the interview to say that the video in which he made those comments was edited to mean something that he didn’t say. He’s also been permanently banned on the social networking site Twitter after making various comments which appeared to endorse harassment of people who disagree with his views. He then went on to thank the site for banning him, saying that it would probably make him more popular and more well known.
There was one person, a blogger named Francis Maxwell who wrote a post that was circulated on The Huffington Post a couple of weeks ago in which Maxwell says that they’re not accepting Yiannopoulos’s apology for his comments about men and young boys in relationships. Maxwell goes on to say that Yiannopoulos is no more sorry for that than he is for how he treated the transgendered student at The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, when he made comments at other universities degrading people in the GLBT Community or when he denies the existence of “Rape Culture”.
I agree with this article, because it shows the danger of unlimited free speech. Unlimited free speech is to the political right what names of governmental offices in George Orwell’s novel 1984 such as The Ministry of Truth are to the people in that world. Unregulated freedom of speech to these people on the right is little more than a cover for them to say whatever they want towards those with whom they disagree or dislike. This is mainly aimed at minorities such as African-Americans, people who are GLBT, immigrants, people of different nationalities and sometimes people with disabilities.
The main idea of this article is to show that with freedom of speech, there comes responsibilities. If we use freedom of speech in ways that harm others such as how Milo Yiannopoulos does which risk harming people in some of the above mentioned minority groups, then we risk problems not only continuing for these people, but a possible worsening of these problems. The hate speech set forth by speakers such as Yiannopoulos is just that, speech that is used to spread hate, bigotry and nonacceptance of those who are different and to make living conditions and other conditions for them unquestionable at best and absolutely unsafe at worst.
Unless we speak up and denounce the hate speech of those such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, then we condemn not only minorities, but all of us. By the time murderous leaders of countries such as Adolf Hitler of Germany finished with the countries they promised to lead and protect, the countries were in ruins, the people had hardly any affective quality of life and resources such as money, food and shelter were just barely in supply. In Germany once Hitler came to the last couple of years of his leadership, the Germans who he claimed to want to protect were left with homes that barely had heat, a serious lack of food due to need for extra food to go towards the war effort and those who were German who resisted what the Nazis were doing were put to death. These were the very people Hitler claimed to love and who he wanted a better world in which they could live. This is how utopian ideologues think, the very people they claim to want to save will inevitably be destroyed along with the ones these leaders originally branded as the enemy of civilization. They soon murder and destroy even those they claimed to love, not in their own minds for the sake of evil, but to further the advancement towards their sun-lit utopia. This is why we must resist and call out people such as Milo Yiannopoulos for who and what they are, just hateful people who are willing to destroy others, then those they love and then themselves in the name of their utopian dreams. This is what happened to Hitler. He ended his days in an under-ground bunker where he poisoned his dog, and then along with his girlfriend who was now his wife Eva Braun, they both committed suicide with her bighting in to a Cyanide capsule and him shooting himself in the head.
These people such as Hitler, Yiannopoulos and others in the end, worship the love of power and it’s this love of power and themselves which destroys these people as well as their chasing of their utopian dreams. These sorts of people once locked in to their nonreality-based belief systems eventually flee from reality and no longer know what it means to be human or to have limitations. Yiannopoulos demonstrates this when he says the things he says, as if there will never be any consequences for his actions that are no more serious than a ban on Twitter against him or the cancelation of his book deal. Finally, the danger is even more within those who Yiannopoulos influences. I’ve not known of anyone who has committed any crimes based on any of Yiannopoulos’s hate speech, but unless we speak out and denounce this man, there probably will be. This is the real danger of people such as Yiannopoulos in addition to all that I’ve already written, for these figures allow and give permission to people to give in to the more darker aspects of their human nature and do or say things that they otherwise might not normally say with little to no consequences. By the time there are any consequences for these figures and their followers, many people have already been harmed or worse. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can listen to those voices such as Chris Hedges, Francis Maxwell, Michael More, Noam Chomsky and George Orwell who’ve tried and who still try to warn us about figures such as Milo Yiannopoulos. They attempt to warn us about the dangers of such people and to take them seriously and to speak out against them. We must fight their hate and poisonous speech with reality, history and the truth of who these sorts of people are. Unless we do this, then we aid in not only the destruction of the minorities against whom these people speak, but we also insure our own destruction.
Article: Hey Milo, You Can Shove Your Hollow Apology
Newspaper: The Huffington Post
Date Accessed: Friday, February 24, 2017
This is from the second reflection paper I wrote in my Multicultural and Prevention Issues Class in the Fall of 2017.
The question of whether or not human beings deserve equal rights is one that can be answered if we begin from the notion that human beings are created equal in that they all are subject to illness, death, unemployment, homelessness and other negative events in life. Given that no one is immune to these misfortunes, I believe that we are all deserving of equal rights under the law. Human beings are all finite, in that anything can happen to reduce our quality of life or even end our lives, sometimes in ways we couldn’t imagine at the moment. There’s also the notion that we have an obligation from various religious and spiritual thinkers that we have a moral duty to protect everyone and everything living on the planet.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his last novel, “The Brothers Karamazov” gave the moral commandment by way of the elder to whom Alyosha, the youngest of the Karamazovs went for guidance, to love all things, all plants, animals and even to love children especially and the elder went on about the dangers long-term for children should they not be loved by people on the earth. In today’s age, we look at people who have lack of health insurance as those who didn’t try hard enough and so deserve their fate, as if the field of medicine was ever supposed to be turned in to a money-making commodity in the first place. Women are also objectified in the form of pornographic films by way of sex acts in which men force themselves down the women’s throats until the woman in question either gags or vomits. Other women are forced to call themselves whores, sluts and begged to be fucked like Bitches and that they deserve to be treated this way.
We also dismiss the mentally ill as either those who either haven’t fixed their situation or who are faking their illness all together. In all of these examples, the human rights of these people are not being honored, in fact they’re being treated as if they have no rights at all. The women in the above mentioned Gonzo Porn Films are dismissed as having made their own choice when they got on the set of the films and that they knew what the work was going to be like when they started doing it. This starts from the notion that because they decided in a moment of interest to get in to pornographic films, that they deserve what they get now and that because they acted in the beginning on choice, that somehow, this isn’t rape. This is not honoring the human rights of anyone, but simple exploitation of our fellow human beings.
Human beings regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religious outlook and disability deserve to have adequate amounts of resources and abilities to get said resources. The debates we’re having over health care for example are false debates. One side wants to have the insurance companies as they are while the so-called left wants single-payer health care for all. While I support us going to a system of health care like what Canada and other countries are doing, I don’t agree with what either side on the left or right want, for the goals they seek as well as the notion from which they start suggests that either a reformation of the for-profit health care system should take place or that the Affordable Care Act should stay in place as is, or with a couple of modifications. The single-payer system might still attempt to work with the same greedy health insurance companies that are causing problems currently such as how the Affordable Care Act operates. It interacts with the same greedy health insurance companies and some people who have jobs can hardly afford the premiums as they are which is something that this so-called law was supposed to correct.
These two sides on this debate fail to realize that the for-profit health care system would still be utilized with either of the two above-mentioned options and thus they could still find ways to hold people hostage when people attempt to seek medical care. As the author Chris Hedges correctly points out, this system can’t nor should it be reformed neither topically or below the surface. To do this implies that the system has an inherently good core with a few abusive traits that can be removed, but this is wrong. Because the for-profit health care system is here first and foremost to make money, then this means that to reform the system in any of these cosmetic manners would mean that the system if not now, then eventually could find ways to become out of control again. So if Hedges is correct and that the for-profit health care system itself inherently as it is now is the problem especially since it’s ran by corporations, then the system itself must be destroyed and only then can we talk about what to do about health care next.
Other rights under different programs such as some of the vocational rehabilitation programs for the visually impaired are restricted for people with visual impairments, although receiving money from the government every year with which to help clients find jobs, housing and other opportunities still operate as if they were corporations. They place profits above the people they claim to want to help. Many visually impaired people when asked by these vocational rehab programs what careers they want to do are given only a few choices from which to choose and the choices are usually answering phones in offices or doing data entry in offices. The client’s protests if they give any are rarely taken in to consideration. This is an example of institutional discrimination which limits the abilities of the visually impaired and other disability minority groups from getting jobs that they truly want or that would pay enough for them to afford food, clothing, shelter and the ability to live on their own. This isn’t viewed as institutional discrimination by these agencies though, they use language manipulation that would be worthy of George Orwell by way of saying that they can’t help the person which causes them to lose the ability to obtain the rights they need by way of the agencies saying that they can’t justify to their superiors the cost of the job, equipment or other opportunities for which the clients attempt to advocate for themselves.
Our country holds itself up as that which practices good human rights all across the board and yet, we have large numbers of men in prison for nonviolent crimes related to drugs, most of whom are African-American or Latino. These prisons are usually currently those which are for-profit and make money off the backs of these people. We talk about standing up for the rights of women and yet men watch violent pornographic films in our current day and age in which women are physically assaulted and sexually assaulted by men who over-power them on the set and on camera.
There’s also the above-mentioned problem facing the disabilities community in general and the blindness community in particular, and yet people speak as if inequality for people who are visually impaired or blind is no longer a thing to worry about in our country as if it’s been destroyed like Small Pox back several decades ago. While these rights which are supposed to protect from all I’ve written might exist to a certain extent, it’s hard for average people to obtain them and the ones who do are usually ones who have had to go through long court battles or who’ve had to make threats of legal actions before getting the rights honored that they needed.
The right to universal wellbeing and health is obtainable, but only if we understand that promoting ideas of tapping in to our inner strength or thinking positively enough won’t make it happen. In today’s age, we’re sold ideas that if we believe in Jesus Christ and his second coming if one is a follower of Pat Robertson and the Christian Right, if we believe enough in reason and science if one is a follower of the New Atheists headed by Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or if we tap in to our inner strength deep enough and just believe in ourselves like what Disney promotes, then we can have anything we desire. There’s also the idea promoted by those such as Ronda Byrne, that if we think positively enough that somehow, we’ll get everything we desire. The danger of these ideas isn’t that they’re non-reality-based though they are, but that they blame people for their own problems or their own situations regardless of whether or not people intentionally or through no fault of their own had things happen to them. Byrne’s idea of positive thinking is disturbing in particular, as it says that if we think positive thoughts about the things or people we want in our lives, then we’ll attract those things or people in to our lives. Should we focus on negative thoughts about things or people, then we attract those in to our lives. This enables those who believe in this idea to extract themselves from moral responsibility of those who need help such as the access to basic human rights as well as a safe standard of living. This idea allows those who follow it to become selfish and morally bankrupt monsters who like in the novels of Ayn Rand concerned themselves only with wealth, power and comfort for themselves.
Obtaining the equal human rights for all within our country and world will come only when we stop carrying on our triple X-rated love affair with the above-listed utopian ideas and easy answers to which our culture of America has become so easily attached. The access to these rights will come only when we give up the neoliberal way of life under which we live in where the government talks of invading countries in the Middle East because of concern for the human rights of the oppressed people over there, then under the cover of these lies, they wage blood-soaked wars on innocent people in these countries. Most of all though, these rights will come to all only when we, all of us in our country and throughout the world can name the problems causing these limitations of human rights for what they are, which for our country is Inverted Totalitarianism which is the form of government under which we live now where by Corporations such as those within the Military Industrial Complex through beholden politicians set in place, neoliberal policies and other laws which protect the interests of these companies. Specifically, these companies within the Military Industrial Complex for whom these politicians operate are companies such as various weapons manufacturers that allow for weapons systems that are used to kill people in other countries most of which are people in the Middle East by way of drones that are controlled from here in the United States.
Unless we call this form of government for the Inverted Totalitarianism and Neoliberalism that it is, most of what’s being attempted by mainstream politicians will fail. The ones brave enough to speak of these root causes such as Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Cline are given airtime only on shows such as Democracy Now or on Chris Hedges’s show “Days of Revolt”. These above-mentioned voices are rarely heard within the mainstream unless clips of what they have to say are played for trash-talking talkshow hosts such as Rush Limbaugh or Rachael Maddow to ridicule and dismiss as conspiracy theorists who know nothing of how our country works as if Limbaugh or Maddow actually are true experts on this.
These questions can relate to counselors mainly in that if one is looking at Systemic Racism as the root of a person’s emotional disturbances or other pathologies, or if the person is having to deal with problems related to institutional discrimination which is causing them emotional problems or psychological issues, then feministic therapists could help with this, as they have backgrounds in dealing with these concerns and this set of clients could be less likely to have their problems, concerns and what they have to say dismissed as pathology or a disorder in need of antidepressants. Some therapists such as those working with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy because they’re focused on thoughts and changing certain thoughts might fail to grasp the deep hole down which people have slid in to institutional discrimination as well as the hidden ways by which said violation is practiced against the individual. Counselors who are trained in problems related to institutional discrimination or systemic oppression could find ways to help their clients by allowing them to discuss how they’re feeling as well as ways to help themselves with negative feelings so that they don’t do any actions that could cause problems or make existing problems worse such as helping a client effected by these above-mentioned problems cope better with anger or another similarly effected client deal with any depression resulting from these problems. If this is dealt with and correctly, then these people could be helped so that in the short-term they could get through the current situation and possibly in the long-term they could possibly get back to a normal and healthy way of life.
This is from Reflection Paper 4 from my Multicultural and Prevention Issues Class.
My Virtual Journey in to the Alt Right
Over the past year with Trump ascending to the office of the Presidency of the United States of America, there’s been a rise in what’s called “The Alt Right” which is for the most part a loosely organized group of white supremacists, Neo Nazis and White Nationalists who have called for a return to traditional values and have joined Trump’s call to: “Make America Great Again!” People such as Steve Bannon and Richard B. Spencer are the ones who lead the movement, but not in a true formal way such as those like Adolf Hitler who unambiguously defined himself as the leader of the Nazis back in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.
I’ve been listening to reports over the past year about the Alt Right from shows such as Democracy Now and from what authors such as Chris Hedges have said regarding the seriousness of the movement’s rise here in this country. I especially took notice when the events occurred in Charlottesville Virginia between Alt Right protesters and those protesting them where the Alt Right members began acting violently towards the counter protesters. Trump has empowered these people, some of whom are angry and who feel betrayed by those in power which is anger that is legitimate, but the solution to which these disaffected members turn for help is far more dangerous than the original problems that have occurred in the first place. So a couple of nights ago, I found something called Red Ice TV which is from a website called Red Ice Creations and can be found at www.redicecreations.com.
This website is the project of Henrik Palmgren who with his wife Lana Lokteff produce videos and podcasts the first of which is called “Red Ice TV” and the other one is called “Radio 314” and they feature various white supremacist guests such as Richard B Spencer and former leader of the KKK David Duke. I had found this show originally by accident when searching for something completely different. When I found this show, it mentioned the topic for which I had been searching and so I began looking at other episodes of the show which after reading the episode names and listening to a good deal of the episodes, it became clear what was being sold here.
Much of the content of this show is anti-Semitic, pro-white, pro white nationalist, anti-Muslim and anti-African American. One of their shows concerned the topic of white people becoming a minority which is one of the core beliefs of the Alt Right. Another episode of the program concerned a documentary film maker who created a documentary in which he made statements suggesting that Adolf Hitler was misunderstood and that Hitler was hardly the murderous dictator history made him out to be. The film maker when interviewed raddled off his pseudo-historical and anti-intellectual ideas with no racial slurs that would without a doubt identify him as a racist. He spoke as clearly and reasonably as one such as those who speak authoritatively on the Theory of Evolution or other scientific concepts. I for one moment wondered if there was even a small piece of truth in even one word of what this man was saying, although I didn’t focus on this for more than a second, as unlike those who may or may not know much about these movements, I pay close attention to their words and their manipulation of words to advance their agenda.
There are other ideas promulgated on this show relating to the movement, but the point is that the danger of this program through which the Alt Right exercise their voice as well as the danger of the movement itself isn’t that it’s nonreality-based which it is, but that it knows how to manipulate language to mean that which people wouldn’t suspect. For example, there was a member of the KKK back in the 90s a clip of which was featured in a few documentaries about white hate groups. This member in question in one documentary was shown at a gathering of his group yelling: “We hate Niggers! We hate Fagots! We hate Spicks and we don’t hate them for any reason, we don’t need a reason to hate them!”. Most people who think of racism and bigotry think of men like the above-quoted individual. They don’t stop to think of well-spoken pseudo-intellectuals such as Richard Spencer or Henrik Palmgren who understand that to get people on their side in today’s age and in any age of hate, they have to make certain words mean new things. An example of this is the meaning of the phrase truth. Truth implies that which is backed up by facts and evidence, but in the hands of the Alt Right and other hate groups, the word truth is used to get people to think of their ideas as the truth or they’re asked to give consideration to the ideas of the Alt Right which is always attempting to portray itself as being a victim of the “Mainstream Media”. The idea they’re attempting to communicate is that facts don’t matter, that one can believe what one chooses and that lies can be true. This is the main core idea on which totalitarian movements are founded which allows people once exposed to the manipulation of language to be more receptive to the ideas of this movement then to become full members. Once people are full members, then all talk of alternative view points and believing what one wants to believe disappears and they give their unyielding views of how they feel about the groups they despise.
After about two nights of listening to this program, I was disgusted by what I had heard. I was also worried about where this movement might eventually end up, especially should they be able to get more people to follow them. I worried especially about the idea that as I finished listening to the episodes of that show that I did, that somewhere else, a disaffected 14-year-old boy or alienated 20-year-old female might be listening to this same show and being fascinated by the pseudo-intellectual ideas of the guests of this program. This isn’t an irrational thought to have, for there were no people on these episodes of this show using words like “Nigger” or “Fagot” which is usually the main or only way by which most Americans seem to be able to identify racists and bigots. Given that this movement knows how to take advantage of those who are disillusioned, angry, disenfranchised or who are young impressionable teenagers looking to belong and if they have any of the above mentioned factors such as abusive home lives, then they could easily be receptive to this movement. It’s especially for this and the above mentioned reasons I stand against this movement as well as this program and why I always suggest to others to do the same whenever this issue comes up in conversation. Not standing against them could only allow them to feel empowered to advance until they’re a true and clear threat to us and to what’s left of our democracy.
It's a sick and messed up world we live in. I don't know enough about a lot of these people you discuss to comment much, but I was certainly unsettled by both Milo's views on feminism and the way he caries himself. Your little write-up on him didn't help my views. I suppose I appreciate he doesn't fit into the mold of political correctness which I find to be a scurge unto itself, but there is definetly a limit. As for the white nationalists and people like them, well they are disturbing also. The thing is, There are ligitimet concerns that occasionally get pushed through these people's mouths that make their hate spewing seem just that tiny bit more paletable. I'm not worried about white minorities for instance, but a lot of jobs here in Canada and the US are going oversees. Now on one hand that's probably good for those countries where living conditions aren't as good, but at the same time, it takes local jobs away. You could easily make viable defenses for both sides, but as a visually impaired individual without a master's degree who has lost a good job to oversees, forgive me if I'm not a little cynical about the whole thing. Same with housing prices in Vancouver right now. Foreign buyers are causing prices to go up. Should regular joes and jills from foreign countries be barred from buying property to live? Of course not. But when when rent is over $1200 CAD per month and even cheap homes are $300,000 in part due to the housing crisis, it's a little hard to be entirely sympathetic all the time. The real problem is the blanket condemnation of races and genders and religions based on the actions of the minority, especially without understanding their circumstances. Statistically are there a lot of African Americans in prisons? maybe, I don't know, people say so, but I haven't looked them up. But the real question is why? What circumstances lead them down that road? is it because they're black and thus cursed by god, so are just playing their evil roles? I bloody well don't think so. But they sure are the scapegoats for a lot of things. And polite or subtle racism is still racism.
Hey everyone.
Think the rich care about us? Think again.
Chris Hedges
"The Deadly Rule of the Oligarches"
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/deadly-rule-oligarchs/
James