Podcast, Discord and Patreon: My Unofficial Discord: discord.com/invite/WTjz5JNUss My Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/2g88k90PsIKnDxU39lU0qi?nd=1&nd=1 Patreon: www.patreon.com/join/TheKavernacle
"Hello. I am a rational big boy atheist. I am an independent non conforming free thinker who does not allow archaic superstitions to infect the purity of my thought. Now that I've got the disclaimer out of the way, here are my xenophobic totalitarian misogynistic etc. views that would not look out of place in sixteenth century feudalism. "
Yanno, I agree with this train of thought-- Like, fuck these guys. They don't actually care about not believing in God, they just want control, and establish what it means to be "white". But... they're not non-influential. They're not fringe. We should probably stop thinking and talking like they are. Yes, we need to raise the floor, and our standards of tolerance and material conditions in our country -- 'cuz they've been SHIT for so long, when they don't need to be --, but acting like we have the side of "common sense" doesn't seem like a winning strategy. We're kinda the underdogs. Sometimes. We need to take the threat seriously. Ever since the capital-coup, all I've seen is liberal posturing. It's like, dawg, these guys don't care that you think they're deluded and dumb. They don't. You can't keep playing the common-sense card. You've gotta strike, and take the fight to them.
When it comes to Hitchins, I think his transition to neoconservative had a lot to do with his own self searching for standing against the next Fascism; in his mind. Looking at so many of his Trotskyist years, pre neoconservative turn, his Marxist analysis was not terrible by any means, but I think that, with the end of the cold war, the rise among liberals in the belief in the end of history and that ideology as a concept was now settled, Hitch was at a loss. There has also been noted a very strange trend of a Trotskyist to Neoconservative pipeline, that, since it was very common for Trotskyists to protest against Socialist states during the cold war period, when the USSR was dissolved and Communism was declared defeated, seeing as how they'd been making common cause with the conservative cold warriors during that time, it was an easy switch to fully join their protest friends. So, when 9/11 happened, in Hitchins' eyes, the liberals and the left not wanting to go to war was, to Hitch, like not wanting to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor; which would follow, in such thinking, a capitulation to a force similar to Fascism; in his mind. He always wanted to be on the side against the next historical villain, but by abandoning his Marxist roots he simply aided the real enemies of society; the rich profiteers of capitalism. A sad story indeed.
I know here in the United States they really got into IQ testing during World War I. They took great delight in saying that southern Blacks just weren't up to the task even though the educational system in the American South when it pertain to black people was abysmal but one thing they did not like talkin about was that Northern blacks, often times because they had access to better education out performed Southern whites on IQ test when it came to getting into the military.
@@damienm.9677 chronic malaria can cause iron deficiency and hence reduced mental and physical fitness and even today with people surviving cerebral malaria you can add minor to major brain damage including even things as hearing impairment. Same goes with intestinal parasites causing malnutrition and iron deficiency leading to anemia. In both cases no educational system can compensate for years or decades of lack of iron.
I feel in a way as if I was very lucky. In the 2000s I was young, male, and white, an I Am Very Intelligent type to top it off, angry and didn’t know where to direct it, hated and sneered at everything and was deeply depressed, and glommed onto the New Atheism movement hard. It could have led down a very dark path for me, and I’m still not really sure why it didn’t. I was grade-A alt-right fodder. I was totally That Guy. I watched a lot of my peers moving further and further down that path, from being skeptical about religion, to about alternative medicine, to about “society” generally, to about liberalism, to about social justice specifically, and finally ending up in the alt-right. I went down a different path altogether. It led me to science. I read The Ancestor’s Tale by Dawkins and it was the greatest, most spiritually awakening thing I’d ever read. I got obsessed with biology. I sorted out my mental health and went back to school, and now I’m studying to become a vet. And politically I’m on the centre-left. Funny, isn’t it.
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.“ - Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) writer/philosopher
Also, the strange thing left out is that half the Muslim word is already secular. Why would they want to impose sharia in the US where they are 1% of the pop and not impose it in their own countries where they are 90%+.
The alt right doesn't comprehend that atheism does not accept the claim that gods exist is true for every religion, including the alt right's religion of gods.
I'm an ex-Muslim who grew up as an ardent follower of New Atheism. It took me many years to realize they were just training me to hate my friends and family. Many ex-Muslims I knew then, still hold the same opinions.
The irony is that I've seen more than a handful of "new atheists" slip back into foppish Christian adoration. And Christianity, like it's Abrahamic counterpart Islam, is also an awful religion.
The western glorification is a horrible thing. West has been involved in destabilizing the middle east and starting the refugee crises themselves, also they arm and support several dictatorships explicitly from where refugees come from. Them being the cause of refugees while also accusing refugees of being "invaders" is baffling. Its like they can't even look at themselves in the mirror, and have no idea about history.
@@l0_0l45 The West is home to plenty of opportunists and imperialists, as has been the case with any empire or collective throughout history. I think the strife of the Middle East is definitely in response to Western invasion and tampering, such as the attempted coup/assassination in Iran way back when, but it's a shame that much of the ME world has chosen religious extremism and societal regression in response. Even the more modern areas, like the UAE, are still remarkably homophobic and wear religious intolerance on their sleeves.
I'm not ex Muslim but I had a friend in highschool who was, we talked a lot and I specifically told him I don't care about his beliefs. I knew he watched people like Sam Harris and these alt right atheist pundits but back then I didn't know what they were exactly. I saw first hand how these people and their beliefs changed him, he started talking less with me, occasionally he'd start talking about religion even tho I had a rule to never talk religion with him, then that turned into resentment and he outright told me he hated me for being Muslim even tho never said anything bad about him or his beliefs and at the end he told me he didn't want to be friends because he doesn't like being friends with a Muslim, basically turning him into the same type of person these New atheists tell them Muslims are.
@@l0_0l45 let's not forget the fact the the west also gave rise to Islamic extremism in the first place, specifically the British and their support of wahhabis and other fundamentalist groups in the middle east against the Ottomans, which at the time had more liberal policies than most European countries like rights for women, LGBT decriminalization and others, which were reversed after British takeover. Then there's the US which is a big ally of Saudi Arabia, the biggest supporter of fundamentalism in the world, or their funding and arming of the Taliban against the left wing government of Afghanistan at the time which was very liberal and progressive, or their hand in the rise of ISIS against Saddam Hussain. Basically every fundamentalist and extremist Islamic group can be traced back to western imperialists
That kind of claim is a weird one. Islam, like any religion, is an idea ANY person is capable of carrying. Muslims are no more a race than Christians. And the legacy of racism and colorism is as present in Islam as Christianity, so it's weird so many conflate it with something it isn't.
@@seandoyle296 The reason is that when Westerners think of “Islam” they 99% of the time are talking specifically about Arabs. The religion and ethnicity have functionally conflated with each other.
@@anthonyl9126 I wasn’t trying to refute him. I was merely stating the reason why so many people conflate religion with race/ethnicity. You are right that it is illogical, but that is how bigotry is.
These people call religious people intolerant while they themselves are as intolerant against religions as they claim religions to be. Maybe we can just say there are tolerant and intolerant people in every group, tolerant and intolerant atheists, tolerant and intolerant christians, tolerant and intolerant muslims. I'm a tolerant, leftist muslim convert myself. Right-wing islamophobics are also similar to salafi extremists in the sense that they hate muslims in the same way as salafi extremists hate non-muslims, but those who suffer the most from this conflict are normal, tolerant, non-extremists muslims who don't hate anyone but are pulled into this conflict of extremists.
Clash of civilizations wasn't specifically about Islam. The claim of the book was that conflict tends to occur at the borders where people see the "other". His theory has a number of problems with it. He cherry picks conflicts a bit to arrive at his claim, and his viewpoint is pretty eurocentric, seeming to believe that all global cultures have coalesced into some understanding of their role as a part of a "civilization". Even when the thesis approaches accuracy, it assumes race is the driving factor of history, and that conflict is driven by who we are rather than what we do. But. It wasn't JUST an anti islam theory.
So much of New Atheism was simply about smugness, Western white middle-class smugness at that...so many self-proclaimed "skeptics" just want a demographic to feel superior to, hence all the vile anti-feminism (masking as pseudo-feminism, see "Dear Muslima") and transphobia etc. among them. This is a great video, subscribed!
Do the foibles of writers nullify their works? Newton and Leibniz were supercilious bullies in their public lives. Calculus is still accurate and useful, regardless of how unlikeable both men were. On the subject of belief, if sufficient evidence for faith claims is never provided by the parties asserting their veracity, then opposition is earned. Even rude opposition is merited - especially for criminals like Cardinal Pell and Ted Haggard, who were famous critics of the atheists discussed in the video.
@@ShaneyElderberry Apples to oranges. Calculus deals with numbers, not people. Any bigotry or bias held by Newton and Leibniz against any person or group of people has no influence on its accuracy and usefulness. If you are dealing with human beings, rather than numbers, bigotry, arrogance etc. can have a negative influence on the accuracy and usefulness of your work, to the point of rendering it worthless. Consider the lion's pride: In reality, it's a group of females, banding together for survival, keeping a male around for, essentially "stud service". In the popular perception, as shaped by male colonizers/explorers whose minds held highly patriarchical ideas, it's a harem fantasy or the f#*king "Lion King". Likewise, a woman calmly describing how a man hit on her in the most obviously inappropriate circumstances and concluding: "Guys, don't do that!" is in reality very helpful for socially awkward men who want to improve their interactions with women. In the perception of certain segments of the atheist movements, she is anything from a spoilt girl who doesn't know how good she has it ("Dear Muslima...) to a shrieking harpy looking to castrate men and accuse them of collectively being r*pists amd murderers. Also, one can still oppose criminals like Pell, Haggard, Falwell etc. or the influence on religious fanaticism on politics and education without treating people of faith as inherently lesser human beings, which is what many "New Atheists" stooped to and which is highly counterproductive in encouraging doubting and questioning still-believers to take "leap out of faith".
"Western values" includes racism, sexism and homophobia (etc.) - so stop acting like it is better (so-called, new atheists). Also, plenty of people in the US wish they could do it me what terrorists would due to me for being gay - so what difference is there? Oh right, lefty losers have helped me fight for rights and social acceptance in the US, while centrists did jack shit and right wingers fought against it.
I think it was important to note in the video that you aren't saying 'new atheism = alt-right' however clear that is. Alt-right are anti-Islam, and atheists are anti-religion. There is an overlap (that requires a lot of ignoring and cherry picking on the alt-right's part). I would criticize the new atheist figure heads with singling out Islam instead of sticking to secularism and organized religion as a whole without anticipating islamophobic reverence. And by no means are any of them beyond criticism, particularly Sam Harris.
I am an atheist but it is a simple fact that atheism seems to attract a lot of racist. And when you're black and an atheist like me it's hard enough to deal with your own community.
The vast majority of Trump supporters are God fearing Christians, because the vast majority of Americans are God fearing Christians (Emphasis on "Fearing"). Sure some small percentage of the Alt Right will be atheists, because politics has got nothing to do with becoming an atheist, they are not linked in any way. I became an atheist at age six, because science gave me verifiable proof, while religions would never prove a damn thing, I'm still an atheist 50 years later. My political ideology is anarchism, Which I developed separately, at age 16, it has nothing to do with my being an atheist. I'm still an anarchist 40 years later.
@@uhurunuru6609 I think that atheists as a whole lean left. If you look at religious world maps, the biggest concentrations of atheists are in former state socialist countries and in social democracies. I think that atheism and leftism is tied together because of its belief in materialism. While atheism on the right is kind of random, and happenstance.
@@Drkon6 Don't Disagree with that, as can be seen from the second to last line of my long 2nd post debunking now removed comments. "Politics, of any shade, has nothing to do with atheism, though I do think atheists naturally tend to the left, it's neither inevitable, nor required"
As an athiest, I would like to say that Harris and Hitchens are not the best representatives of how most of us really feel about topics like this. Cosmic Skeptic, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Matt Dillahunty, and Rationality Rules are far better examples of what the better part of athiesm has become over the past couple years.
@@ContoQuintay who? None of them are transphobic as far as I'm aware. I know for a fact that MD isn't. I know that CS and GMS have both been pretty outspoken in their support for the LGBT community, so unless their views have changed recently then I think you're mistaken.
Yes they are Riley it was a whole massive thing my dude although other bigots in the new atheist movement made sure their careers didn't suffer by rallying around them. It goes deeper and there's a bunch more too it but here's some coverage regarding Dillahunty and rationality rules to start you off. If I remember right GMS is involved as well ruclips.net/video/Zj4svFcGpng/видео.html
It's kind of ironic they talk about Islam going to other countries taken over maybe they should ask the Native Americans how they felt about Christians coming to the Americas or Africans under the Sahara, parts of Asia and Australia with Christianity.
@David Vazquez okay???? But it was not Islamic forces that took your land from you that would be more Christian forces that took your land. That is if you're really a Native American, people seem to be a lot of things on the internet.👍🏿😉
@David Vazquez you know exactly what I'm talking about I'm talking about the historical seizure of indigenous lands by the United States that was done by Christian forces not Islamic. That's what I'm talkin about.
@David Vazquez there was no Christianity in 9th Century CE North America. If your dad is a Native American then he's not an immigrant. Unless you're talking about Indian with a dot. And not a feather.
@David Vazquez once again just because you have a Spanish name doesn't make you Native American. Pretty of people with Spanish names and they were not Native American nor do they have Native American blood in them.
To me, to link atheism to any other ism is nonsensical. The only thing that makes someone an atheist is the lack of belief in gods. Having said that, many atheists are atheists because they have thought about the various religions texts and found the inherent cruelty abhorrent. That is where they started to question and is why you find many of them sharing intersectional ideas such as feminism, equality, ending poverty and LGBTQ+ issues, for instance, which are predominately found on the left. However, atheism isn't some magical talisman against bigotry.
True but even so many like to try to make a view buck on the drama saying otherwise. Even theists such as with Trinity Radio go off trashing atheists making some money on that.
Most secularly atheist charity types are more into joking on Satanism statues and effort to takes down religious symbolism as if that makes Grinch Christmas disappear. Though there is no war in Christmas either as theists are majority and have conflicting or competitive views...this holiday sticks around. Only ones ever tried to take such away legally were puritans. As an atheist don't care about the symbolism as I rather people not forget the history of all if it. People still do and cherry pick however. Oh well. I totally agree with you.
I'm a semi-militant atheist and a socialist. I'll engage with religious people and challenge their views, but would rather have them as allies in politics.
@@Drkon6 It's interesting to note that a lot of early socialist movements in western Europe had some ties to Christianity. Makes sense, considering Christ certainly wasn't a capitalist.
I never liked New Atheism. It's a cool kids club for _EDGY_ (shallow) people. Sam Harris is an outright fraud. He bought his degree and has done no sound methodological work. He's not qualified to talk about much of anything, and the substance of his statements is unimpressive. He just speaks in a calm drone, and that affectation snookers some people. I guess it also helps if his assertions are congruent to the listeners' biases or self-image.
>He bought his degree Y-Yeah...that is how university works. Also, that last is also a y-yeah. That is how it works? People gather around others that complement their cognitive biases and self image. You could say that is how ‘community’ works. I am not a new atheist, but honestly your logic is kind of just bad and you seem more interested in trying to poison the well of his character rather then actually critique one of his ideological positions.
You can absolutely buy a degree, if you're very, very rich. America is not meritocratic. This is from the most succinct write up of Sam Harris' fraud I have: ""Harris’ desire to sleaze his way through a doctorate in neuroscience in particular was motivated by his instincts as an arch-careerist. “The End of Faith” was already on the shelves - he was already a Somebody in the public sphere, and he already had a topic that he knew would play. His PhD would investigate the differences in brain activity between Christians and non-Christian people when asked various factual or non-factual questions. The goal was to find some kind of neurological correlate of religiosity, showing how religious people think less rationally than atheists. He could then use this as a stick to beat religious people - presumably Muslims - with: “your brains work differently to ours”. These findings would tie everything up in a neat bow: Muslims are irrational and crazy, and here are the brain scans to prove it! Fortunately for Sam, and unfortunately for the credibility of neuroscientists generally, it’s pretty easy to produce whatever results you like with a little bit of methodological tilting of the scales. "Two equally interesting questions arise from the tale of Sam’s PhD thesis. Firstly, where did he get the money? MRI machines are expensive pieces of equipment, and are often rented for short periods at great expense. By now we should be able to guess the answer: Sam naturally had this covered through personal wealth and connections. Right around the time he was beginning his thesis Harris founded “The Reason Project”, later to become “Project Reason”, a “charitable foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society”. The Reason Project was apparently feeling particularly charitable about Sam, and provided the funds for his PhD, including use of facilities and an MRI machine. Once again, mum to the rescue. "The second problem was potentially more difficult. Sam had no history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his life. It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting his PhD proposal, until you remember that Sam was by this stage highly connected, filthy rich, and becoming famous. He was given the red carpet treatment by UCLA. Sam got to pretend to do science while the professionals got to work. The various research jobs were passed to his co-authors: conducting the experiments, recruiting participants and designing the entire study were taken off Little Lord Fauntleroy’s hands. Ultimately Sam’s sole responsibility was the final write-up, which is less the account of a scientific experiment and more a screed about his personal views on religion, and a narcissistic flexing of his intellectual cred." rhizzone.net/articles/sam-harris-fraud/ The late Michael Brooks has also done numerous videos dissecting the racist quackery of Sam Harris, if that's more to your taste. I appreciate your skepticism, and I hope you find this a satisfactory response. Perhaps you will find upon disinterested analysis of Sam Harris' work that he does not offer much on Muslims that Bill O'Reilly couldn't, and that as atheists go, he's not particularly remarkable either.
4:20 I'm not a christian but I want to point out that in many ways classic fascism in 20th century europe and Latin America was very secular in practice. Figures like Hitler felt a large amount of disqust towards religion, especially if it was all encompassing.
If you decide to exclude Italy, Spain, the English wing of fascism, Southern German/Austrian populations of the Third Reich (and the apparent crusader imagery from the Parzival myth in German political rhetoric), and the ecclesiastical involvement in the Balkan nations, it might seem that way. Obviously, that's a lot to exclude.
Hitler also claimed he was doing God’s work, comparing himself to Moses leading the Aryans to the holy land but unable to set foot in it himself. Fascism and religion have gone hand in hand because religion is a very easy way to get people to think in terms of in group and out group.
What is your definition of "alt right"? And what are "new" atheists? People who have been atheists for less than a month? People who don't believe in "new" gods? Why would evangelical Christians (as I understand the alt right to be) like atheists? That doesn't make sense!
“Alt right” is a broad term used to describe right wingers who denounce mainstream conservatism and align more with extremist white nationalist groups and ideologies. “New atheism” was an online movement back in the late 2000’s/early 2010’s that spoke out against religion. It was based around the works and arguments posed by popular outspoken atheists at the time namely: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens who were dubbed “the four horsemen”. It later formed into the “skeptic” sphere of RUclips in the mid 2010’s and transitioned away from criticizing religion as a whole and more into the anti-Islam, anti-sjw camp and became more overtly political. Since the content was mainly focused around bashing Islam and left leaning people it caught on with conservatives who co-opted it and drove it further and further right over time to the point where many of the original online skeptic figures are now openly religious and advocate for a white ethnostate. The rhetorical strategies have remained consistent throughout time though, they were the original online “facts don’t care about your feelings” “debate me bro” types, they’re essentially the source of online conservative rhetoric today. This is mostly spoken from personal experience since I’ve been around since the late days of new atheism.
Honestly never even heard of him until I did some research for this video - add him to a sea of old white racist conservative men who write for the Time/Mail lol
@@stilltoomanyhats It's about CHARLES Murray and not Douglas. I appreciate that Shaun makes thorough videos but I belong to the camp where 2 hours of videos are too long and are detrimental and cause inflation of information. If videos were a book or lecture I'd read watch them.
if Sam Harris instead directed his time he spent with Murray to the religious demagoguery in the US government, maybe i’d still respect him. If he was more interested in the socio-economic exploitation of blacks in the US (with the help of Christianity), it would make more sense for him as he self-proclaims to be on the left
Your criticism of Sam Harris in that specific clip is rather odd friend. I think what he was pointing out was what trump said not that it more or less special because he said it in Poland. Like I think he just literally means - like a reference so maybe we can look it up as the listener so we could confirm for ourselves. Not a biggie. You seem rather smart and have good approach to analysis. Hope to here more from you.
I'm surprised you haven't yet made a video about the British origins of the alt-right. Jonathan Bowden, reputed to be Britain's greatest contemporary orator, remains a cult figure among online dissident rightists.
Uhm I don’t think there was much if any generalizing. Important intellectuals in the New Atheist movement, with whom many in that movement regard as important figures, were critiqued on world views they hold. The arguments were well made (in my opinion) and not hyperbolic. As a former new atheist I found this video quite good.
Lol, as if tRump himself actually wrote that speech from Poland 😂 And tRump preaching about values is utterly hilarious. This is the thing with Harris, he sounds intelligent, but his substance is just shallow Right wing populism that’s interchangeable with tRumpism
@@TheKavernacle Ah my bad, I saw the thumbnail for the previous in my suggestions and thought they looked the same (just the pepe instead of the moon and star)... Also they both start with the same Hitchens interview! :p
Ok, saw the rest of your video... Bro, like but democracy be like that though. If the majority decide to go J-law we aren’t designed in the democracy to respond without war. Yeah, so I know this sounds crazy but the reality is that if a set of humans simply say “we are special so we BELONG on top” and then that’s a problem. Obviously, this is why democracy is so popular now. Tolerance yes, but understanding the relationship is important. .... I think your arguments are rather short sited. I don’t know about the alt right link. I just know from countless hours of content I have observed specifically by the two men you charge. One Hitchens, which shame on you cuz you would not have been able to answer to him. And Harris. And although I didn’t always agree with their takes, I know them for sure NOT to be as you have tried to portray. Rather underhanded. The idea is much more complex than that, and will require new ways of thinking for you. Best journey friend.
Hitchens did get weird, bordering on right-wing, in the latter part of his life, but he was never an Islamophobe like Harris is and was from the very start (my personal view of Harris is that he hides a far-right agenda behind a thin veneer of atheism, not actual atheism at that since he considers one religion worse than the others). Dawkins, in my view, makes no difference between religions. He thinks they're all equally detrimental to society.
@Mark Morris If you have evidence to support this claim, please provide it. Because that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. I have watched and read Dawkins extensively and have not come across any such comments, so I highly doubt it. But, of course, if you have anything to back up your claim I am willing to reconsider.
@Mark Morris Thank you very much for this! I thought better of him than that, but since he's clearly gone the way of Sam Harris, there goes my last shred of respect for the man (what with his transphobic remarks a year or so ago). Anyway, thank you for enlightening me! :-)
@Mark Morris In my case I think it's because I had a positive view of him (as a stalwart defender of science in a world where religious people were trying to undermine the very foundation of it, i.e. evidence based research), and as such, I think I found it hard to make the mental leap of him being a force for "good" as it were, to him being just another talking head promoting Islamophobia while hiding behind the atheist moniker. I excused his earlier collaboration with Sam Harris because he always made sure to not single out any particular religion. But after his transphobic statements I distanced myself from him because, of course, you cannot claim to be a humanist and then express bigoted remarks (especially when it comes to such a vulnerable group as the trans community). I still thought his fight against religious influence in science had been worthwhile and was willing to acknowledge his accomplishments in that field. However, after reading the links you provided, one has to wonder if he was just part of the racist, right-wing "culture war" and if he was ever sincere in his claim to not distinguish between the religions? The mere fact that his intellectual honesty is in doubt indicates, to me at least, that he is not worthy of championing that struggle. And yes, I have to agree with you about his "anglicanism", though for me as a Swede, I tend to just write that sort of thing off as the Englishness of a certain class. :-) And I, of course, fully agree that the Anglican church just as the Swedish Church, which was instituted under much the same circumstances as the Anglican, (Gustav Wasa looting the monasteries and putting himself at the head of it) is more about veiled nationalism than anything else. Sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to express my views on the subject matter as precise as possible. :-) Anyway; Cheers for bringing all this to my attention! =)
Podcast, Discord and Patreon:
My Unofficial Discord: discord.com/invite/WTjz5JNUss
My Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/2g88k90PsIKnDxU39lU0qi?nd=1&nd=1
Patreon: www.patreon.com/join/TheKavernacle
Is alt right and anti sjw are the same?
@@davidwilson5521 often but not always
@@TheKavernacle but anti sjw do love japan
Do you have another discord link? This one isn't working...
@@davidwilson5521 True
"Hello. I am a rational big boy atheist. I am an independent non conforming free thinker who does not allow archaic superstitions to infect the purity of my thought. Now that I've got the disclaimer out of the way, here are my xenophobic totalitarian misogynistic etc. views that would not look out of place in sixteenth century feudalism. "
Yanno, I agree with this train of thought-- Like, fuck these guys. They don't actually care about not believing in God, they just want control, and establish what it means to be "white".
But... they're not non-influential. They're not fringe. We should probably stop thinking and talking like they are. Yes, we need to raise the floor, and our standards of tolerance and material conditions in our country -- 'cuz they've been SHIT for so long, when they don't need to be --, but acting like we have the side of "common sense" doesn't seem like a winning strategy. We're kinda the underdogs. Sometimes. We need to take the threat seriously.
Ever since the capital-coup, all I've seen is liberal posturing. It's like, dawg, these guys don't care that you think they're deluded and dumb. They don't. You can't keep playing the common-sense card. You've gotta strike, and take the fight to them.
What does that entail though? Because it seems like acknowledging them is what they want, negatively or otherwise
When it comes to Hitchins, I think his transition to neoconservative had a lot to do with his own self searching for standing against the next Fascism; in his mind. Looking at so many of his Trotskyist years, pre neoconservative turn, his Marxist analysis was not terrible by any means, but I think that, with the end of the cold war, the rise among liberals in the belief in the end of history and that ideology as a concept was now settled, Hitch was at a loss. There has also been noted a very strange trend of a Trotskyist to Neoconservative pipeline, that, since it was very common for Trotskyists to protest against Socialist states during the cold war period, when the USSR was dissolved and Communism was declared defeated, seeing as how they'd been making common cause with the conservative cold warriors during that time, it was an easy switch to fully join their protest friends. So, when 9/11 happened, in Hitchins' eyes, the liberals and the left not wanting to go to war was, to Hitch, like not wanting to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor; which would follow, in such thinking, a capitulation to a force similar to Fascism; in his mind. He always wanted to be on the side against the next historical villain, but by abandoning his Marxist roots he simply aided the real enemies of society; the rich profiteers of capitalism. A sad story indeed.
Well said, it’s a sad story indeed
Hitchens was also influenced by the persecution of the Kurds.
I know here in the United States they really got into IQ testing during World War I. They took great delight in saying that southern Blacks just weren't up to the task even though the educational system in the American South when it pertain to black people was abysmal but one thing they did not like talkin about was that Northern blacks, often times because they had access to better education out performed Southern whites on IQ test when it came to getting into the military.
Tell Jesse Lee Petterson that.
That may have less to do with education but the fat that the southern states had massive parasite burden with Malaria and W
worms.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 how does malaria impact IQ tests?
@@damienm.9677 chronic malaria can cause iron deficiency and hence reduced mental and physical fitness and even today with people surviving cerebral malaria you can add minor to major brain damage including even things as hearing impairment.
Same goes with intestinal parasites causing malnutrition and iron deficiency leading to anemia.
In both cases no educational system can compensate for years or decades of lack of iron.
and to this day the south still has the worst education, that’s why hillbillies exist
It's only barbaric and backwards if *they* do it, not we
Whataboutism shall we.
I feel in a way as if I was very lucky. In the 2000s I was young, male, and white, an I Am Very Intelligent type to top it off, angry and didn’t know where to direct it, hated and sneered at everything and was deeply depressed, and glommed onto the New Atheism movement hard. It could have led down a very dark path for me, and I’m still not really sure why it didn’t. I was grade-A alt-right fodder. I was totally That Guy.
I watched a lot of my peers moving further and further down that path, from being skeptical about religion, to about alternative medicine, to about “society” generally, to about liberalism, to about social justice specifically, and finally ending up in the alt-right.
I went down a different path altogether. It led me to science. I read The Ancestor’s Tale by Dawkins and it was the greatest, most spiritually awakening thing I’d ever read. I got obsessed with biology. I sorted out my mental health and went back to school, and now I’m studying to become a vet. And politically I’m on the centre-left.
Funny, isn’t it.
10:15 The bit where you forgot to edit made me chuckle
Haha damn first time for everything
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.“ - Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) writer/philosopher
Also, the strange thing left out is that half the Muslim word is already secular. Why would they want to impose sharia in the US where they are 1% of the pop and not impose it in their own countries where they are 90%+.
The alt right doesn't comprehend that atheism does not accept the claim that gods exist is true for every religion, including the alt right's religion of gods.
FINALLY someone talking about the many issues with France's view of its history and the collusion between centrists and far right politicians
I'm an ex-Muslim who grew up as an ardent follower of New Atheism. It took me many years to realize they were just training me to hate my friends and family. Many ex-Muslims I knew then, still hold the same opinions.
The irony is that I've seen more than a handful of "new atheists" slip back into foppish Christian adoration. And Christianity, like it's Abrahamic counterpart Islam, is also an awful religion.
The western glorification is a horrible thing. West has been involved in destabilizing the middle east and starting the refugee crises themselves, also they arm and support several dictatorships explicitly from where refugees come from. Them being the cause of refugees while also accusing refugees of being "invaders" is baffling. Its like they can't even look at themselves in the mirror, and have no idea about history.
@@l0_0l45 The West is home to plenty of opportunists and imperialists, as has been the case with any empire or collective throughout history.
I think the strife of the Middle East is definitely in response to Western invasion and tampering, such as the attempted coup/assassination in Iran way back when, but it's a shame that much of the ME world has chosen religious extremism and societal regression in response.
Even the more modern areas, like the UAE, are still remarkably homophobic and wear religious intolerance on their sleeves.
I'm not ex Muslim but I had a friend in highschool who was, we talked a lot and I specifically told him I don't care about his beliefs. I knew he watched people like Sam Harris and these alt right atheist pundits but back then I didn't know what they were exactly. I saw first hand how these people and their beliefs changed him, he started talking less with me, occasionally he'd start talking about religion even tho I had a rule to never talk religion with him, then that turned into resentment and he outright told me he hated me for being Muslim even tho never said anything bad about him or his beliefs and at the end he told me he didn't want to be friends because he doesn't like being friends with a Muslim, basically turning him into the same type of person these New atheists tell them Muslims are.
@@l0_0l45 let's not forget the fact the the west also gave rise to Islamic extremism in the first place, specifically the British and their support of wahhabis and other fundamentalist groups in the middle east against the Ottomans, which at the time had more liberal policies than most European countries like rights for women, LGBT decriminalization and others, which were reversed after British takeover.
Then there's the US which is a big ally of Saudi Arabia, the biggest supporter of fundamentalism in the world, or their funding and arming of the Taliban against the left wing government of Afghanistan at the time which was very liberal and progressive, or their hand in the rise of ISIS against Saddam Hussain. Basically every fundamentalist and extremist Islamic group can be traced back to western imperialists
I've never really listened to Sam Harris, fuck is he ALWAYS that bereft of any kind of charisma?
You mean that droning voice? Yeah, that's always been him. He didn't put many points into Charisma.
Always
You really shine in this particular topic, thank you!
Are you a Doomer?
8:00 I’m not racist I have Muslim friends
That kind of claim is a weird one. Islam, like any religion, is an idea ANY person is capable of carrying. Muslims are no more a race than Christians. And the legacy of racism and colorism is as present in Islam as Christianity, so it's weird so many conflate it with something it isn't.
@@seandoyle296 The reason is that when Westerners think of “Islam” they 99% of the time are talking specifically about Arabs. The religion and ethnicity have functionally conflated with each other.
@@Zarastro54 that doesn't exactly refute what Sean said. You wouldn't say that a mathematician is wrong about X by virtue of other people abusing it.
@@anthonyl9126 I wasn’t trying to refute him. I was merely stating the reason why so many people conflate religion with race/ethnicity. You are right that it is illogical, but that is how bigotry is.
Islam isn’t a race. It’s a religion
Eloquently put and great arguments!!
These people call religious people intolerant while they themselves are as intolerant against religions as they claim religions to be. Maybe we can just say there are tolerant and intolerant people in every group, tolerant and intolerant atheists, tolerant and intolerant christians, tolerant and intolerant muslims. I'm a tolerant, leftist muslim convert myself.
Right-wing islamophobics are also similar to salafi extremists in the sense that they hate muslims in the same way as salafi extremists hate non-muslims, but those who suffer the most from this conflict are normal, tolerant, non-extremists muslims who don't hate anyone but are pulled into this conflict of extremists.
“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”
“I have Muslim friends I can’t hate muslims”
Sam Harris
he said that what a fucked up man
He literally became that person who say, "I can't be racist, I have black friends".
@@soultr549 Sam Harris has said that the statement "I can’t be racist, I have a black friend" isn’t racist…
@@ARUclipsCommentator oh
Clash of civilizations wasn't specifically about Islam. The claim of the book was that conflict tends to occur at the borders where people see the "other". His theory has a number of problems with it. He cherry picks conflicts a bit to arrive at his claim, and his viewpoint is pretty eurocentric, seeming to believe that all global cultures have coalesced into some understanding of their role as a part of a "civilization". Even when the thesis approaches accuracy, it assumes race is the driving factor of history, and that conflict is driven by who we are rather than what we do. But. It wasn't JUST an anti islam theory.
So much of New Atheism was simply about smugness, Western white middle-class smugness at that...so many self-proclaimed "skeptics" just want a demographic to feel superior to, hence all the vile anti-feminism (masking as pseudo-feminism, see "Dear Muslima") and transphobia etc. among them. This is a great video, subscribed!
Do the foibles of writers nullify their works? Newton and Leibniz were supercilious bullies in their public lives. Calculus is still accurate and useful, regardless of how unlikeable both men were. On the subject of belief, if sufficient evidence for faith claims is never provided by the parties asserting their veracity, then opposition is earned. Even rude opposition is merited - especially for criminals like Cardinal Pell and Ted Haggard, who were famous critics of the atheists discussed in the video.
@@ShaneyElderberry Apples to oranges. Calculus deals with numbers, not people. Any bigotry or bias held by Newton and Leibniz against any person or group of people has no influence on its accuracy and usefulness. If you are dealing with human beings, rather than numbers, bigotry, arrogance etc. can have a negative influence on the accuracy and usefulness of your work, to the point of rendering it worthless. Consider the lion's pride: In reality, it's a group of females, banding together for survival, keeping a male around for, essentially "stud service". In the popular perception, as shaped by male colonizers/explorers whose minds held highly patriarchical ideas, it's a harem fantasy or the f#*king "Lion King". Likewise, a woman calmly describing how a man hit on her in the most obviously inappropriate circumstances and concluding: "Guys, don't do that!" is in reality very helpful for socially awkward men who want to improve their interactions with women. In the perception of certain segments of the atheist movements, she is anything from a spoilt girl who doesn't know how good she has it ("Dear Muslima...) to a shrieking harpy looking to castrate men and accuse them of collectively being r*pists amd murderers.
Also, one can still oppose criminals like Pell, Haggard, Falwell etc. or the influence on religious fanaticism on politics and education without treating people of faith as inherently lesser human beings, which is what many "New Atheists" stooped to and which is highly counterproductive in encouraging doubting and questioning still-believers to take "leap out of faith".
"Western Civilization" lol
"Western values" includes racism, sexism and homophobia (etc.) - so stop acting like it is better (so-called, new atheists). Also, plenty of people in the US wish they could do it me what terrorists would due to me for being gay - so what difference is there? Oh right, lefty losers have helped me fight for rights and social acceptance in the US, while centrists did jack shit and right wingers fought against it.
I think it was important to note in the video that you aren't saying 'new atheism = alt-right' however clear that is. Alt-right are anti-Islam, and atheists are anti-religion. There is an overlap (that requires a lot of ignoring and cherry picking on the alt-right's part). I would criticize the new atheist figure heads with singling out Islam instead of sticking to secularism and organized religion as a whole without anticipating islamophobic reverence. And by no means are any of them beyond criticism, particularly Sam Harris.
I am an atheist but it is a simple fact that atheism seems to attract a lot of racist. And when you're black and an atheist like me it's hard enough to deal with your own community.
I haven't found this to be true.
The vast majority of Trump supporters are God fearing Christians, because the vast majority of Americans are God fearing Christians (Emphasis on "Fearing").
Sure some small percentage of the Alt Right will be atheists, because politics has got nothing to do with becoming an atheist, they are not linked in any way.
I became an atheist at age six, because science gave me verifiable proof, while religions would never prove a damn thing, I'm still an atheist 50 years later.
My political ideology is anarchism, Which I developed separately, at age 16, it has nothing to do with my being an atheist. I'm still an anarchist 40 years later.
Visiting multiple continents will make it immediately apparent how invested in racialism the whole world is. The majority of them are theists.
@@uhurunuru6609 I think that atheists as a whole lean left. If you look at religious world maps, the biggest concentrations of atheists are in former state socialist countries and in social democracies. I think that atheism and leftism is tied together because of its belief in materialism. While atheism on the right is kind of random, and happenstance.
@@Drkon6 Don't Disagree with that, as can be seen from the second to last line of my long 2nd post debunking now removed comments.
"Politics, of any shade, has nothing to do with atheism, though I do think atheists naturally tend to the left, it's neither inevitable, nor required"
What? The far right is increasing apostolic Christian.
As an athiest, I would like to say that Harris and Hitchens are not the best representatives of how most of us really feel about topics like this. Cosmic Skeptic, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Matt Dillahunty, and Rationality Rules are far better examples of what the better part of athiesm has become over the past couple years.
Agreed.
At least 3 of the guys you listed are pretty toxic and transphobic my dude. I personally don't think they represent a good side of new atheism.
@@ContoQuintay who? None of them are transphobic as far as I'm aware. I know for a fact that MD isn't. I know that CS and GMS have both been pretty outspoken in their support for the LGBT community, so unless their views have changed recently then I think you're mistaken.
@@ContoQuintay oh, and toxic in what way exactly?
Yes they are Riley it was a whole massive thing my dude although other bigots in the new atheist movement made sure their careers didn't suffer by rallying around them.
It goes deeper and there's a bunch more too it but here's some coverage regarding Dillahunty and rationality rules to start you off. If I remember right GMS is involved as well
ruclips.net/video/Zj4svFcGpng/видео.html
It's kind of ironic they talk about Islam going to other countries taken over maybe they should ask the Native Americans how they felt about Christians coming to the Americas or Africans under the Sahara, parts of Asia and Australia with Christianity.
@David Vazquez okay???? But it was not Islamic forces that took your land from you that would be more Christian forces that took your land. That is if you're really a Native American, people seem to be a lot of things on the internet.👍🏿😉
@David Vazquez you know exactly what I'm talking about I'm talking about the historical seizure of indigenous lands by the United States that was done by Christian forces not Islamic. That's what I'm talkin about.
@David Vazquez 🤣🤣🤣🤣 that's a lie just because you have a Spanish name doesn't mean that you are Native American.
@David Vazquez there was no Christianity in 9th Century CE North America. If your dad is a Native American then he's not an immigrant. Unless you're talking about Indian with a dot. And not a feather.
@David Vazquez once again just because you have a Spanish name doesn't make you Native American. Pretty of people with Spanish names and they were not Native American nor do they have Native American blood in them.
Great video !! :)
Trump reading a speech, likely written by Stephen Miller, is not the feat that Sam Harris thinks that it is.
Exactly !! How does this guy get called an Intellectual. He’s just one bad take after another.
To me, to link atheism to any other ism is nonsensical. The only thing that makes someone an atheist is the lack of belief in gods.
Having said that, many atheists are atheists because they have thought about the various religions texts and found the inherent cruelty abhorrent. That is where they started to question and is why you find many of them sharing intersectional ideas such as feminism, equality, ending poverty and LGBTQ+ issues, for instance, which are predominately found on the left.
However, atheism isn't some magical talisman against bigotry.
True but even so many like to try to make a view buck on the drama saying otherwise. Even theists such as with Trinity Radio go off trashing atheists making some money on that.
Most secularly atheist charity types are more into joking on Satanism statues and effort to takes down religious symbolism as if that makes Grinch Christmas disappear. Though there is no war in Christmas either as theists are majority and have conflicting or competitive views...this holiday sticks around. Only ones ever tried to take such away legally were puritans.
As an atheist don't care about the symbolism as I rather people not forget the history of all if it. People still do and cherry pick however. Oh well.
I totally agree with you.
Isn’t new atheism very anti religious, I’m and aren’t new atheist very anti Christian
Not as much, no. Lots of excusing Christian atrocities because much of European conquest, history, cultural progress, etc, is tied to Christianity.
I’m an atheist, and I’m opposed to all forms of religious oppression. I also value science, skepticism, and humanist values.
I'm a semi-militant atheist and a socialist. I'll engage with religious people and challenge their views, but would rather have them as allies in politics.
@@Drkon6 It's interesting to note that a lot of early socialist movements in western Europe had some ties to Christianity. Makes sense, considering Christ certainly wasn't a capitalist.
@@seandoyle296
Yeah they were, this was most prevalent in South American liberation theology.
Neo athiest creates a void but forgets to fill it up but alt right likes to fill it up.
Dude I want to say you're becoming better and better at this gig (whatever your sub count), keep on improving.
I never liked New Atheism. It's a cool kids club for _EDGY_ (shallow) people.
Sam Harris is an outright fraud. He bought his degree and has done no sound methodological work. He's not qualified to talk about much of anything, and the substance of his statements is unimpressive. He just speaks in a calm drone, and that affectation snookers some people.
I guess it also helps if his assertions are congruent to the listeners' biases or self-image.
>He bought his degree
Y-Yeah...that is how university works.
Also, that last is also a y-yeah. That is how it works? People gather around others that complement their cognitive biases and self image. You could say that is how ‘community’ works.
I am not a new atheist, but honestly your logic is kind of just bad and you seem more interested in trying to poison the well of his character rather then actually critique one of his ideological positions.
You can absolutely buy a degree, if you're very, very rich. America is not meritocratic.
This is from the most succinct write up of Sam Harris' fraud I have:
""Harris’ desire to sleaze his way through a doctorate in neuroscience in
particular was motivated by his instincts as an arch-careerist. “The End
of Faith” was already on the shelves - he was already a Somebody in the
public sphere, and he already had a topic that he knew would play. His
PhD would investigate the differences in brain activity between
Christians and non-Christian people when asked various factual or
non-factual questions. The goal was to find some kind of neurological
correlate of religiosity, showing how religious people think less
rationally than atheists. He could then use this as a stick to beat
religious people - presumably Muslims - with: “your brains work
differently to ours”. These findings would tie everything up in a neat
bow: Muslims are irrational and crazy, and here are the brain scans to
prove it! Fortunately for Sam, and unfortunately for the credibility of
neuroscientists generally, it’s pretty easy to produce whatever results
you like with a little bit of methodological tilting of the scales.
"Two equally interesting questions arise from the tale of Sam’s PhD
thesis. Firstly, where did he get the money? MRI machines are expensive
pieces of equipment, and are often rented for short periods at great
expense. By now we should be able to guess the answer: Sam naturally had
this covered through personal wealth and connections. Right around the
time he was beginning his thesis Harris founded “The Reason Project”,
later to become “Project Reason”, a “charitable foundation devoted to
spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society”. The
Reason Project was apparently feeling particularly charitable about Sam,
and provided the funds for his PhD, including use of facilities and an
MRI machine. Once again, mum to the rescue.
"The second problem was potentially more difficult. Sam had no
history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his
life. It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting
his PhD proposal, until you remember that Sam was by this stage highly
connected, filthy rich, and becoming famous. He was given the red carpet
treatment by UCLA. Sam got to pretend to do science while the
professionals got to work. The various research jobs were passed to his
co-authors: conducting the experiments, recruiting participants and
designing the entire study were taken off Little Lord Fauntleroy’s
hands. Ultimately Sam’s sole responsibility was the final write-up,
which is less the account of a scientific experiment and more a screed
about his personal views on religion, and a narcissistic flexing of his
intellectual cred."
rhizzone.net/articles/sam-harris-fraud/
The late Michael Brooks has also done numerous videos dissecting the racist quackery of Sam Harris, if that's more to your taste.
I appreciate your skepticism, and I hope you find this a satisfactory response. Perhaps you will find upon disinterested analysis of Sam Harris' work that he does not offer much on Muslims that Bill O'Reilly couldn't, and that as atheists go, he's not particularly remarkable either.
Atheists are gonna make me a fundamentalist
As I get older, I like Hitchens when he's younger lolz.
4:20 I'm not a christian but I want to point out that in many ways classic fascism in 20th century europe and Latin America was very secular in practice. Figures like Hitler felt a large amount of disqust towards religion, especially if it was all encompassing.
If you decide to exclude Italy, Spain, the English wing of fascism, Southern German/Austrian populations of the Third Reich (and the apparent crusader imagery from the Parzival myth in German political rhetoric), and the ecclesiastical involvement in the Balkan nations, it might seem that way. Obviously, that's a lot to exclude.
Hitler also claimed he was doing God’s work, comparing himself to Moses leading the Aryans to the holy land but unable to set foot in it himself. Fascism and religion have gone hand in hand because religion is a very easy way to get people to think in terms of in group and out group.
Great video
Algorithm i choose you
What is your definition of "alt right"? And what are "new" atheists? People who have been atheists for less than a month? People who don't believe in "new" gods? Why would evangelical Christians (as I understand the alt right to be) like atheists? That doesn't make sense!
“Alt right” is a broad term used to describe right wingers who denounce mainstream conservatism and align more with extremist white nationalist groups and ideologies. “New atheism” was an online movement back in the late 2000’s/early 2010’s that spoke out against religion. It was based around the works and arguments posed by popular outspoken atheists at the time namely: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens who were dubbed “the four horsemen”. It later formed into the “skeptic” sphere of RUclips in the mid 2010’s and transitioned away from criticizing religion as a whole and more into the anti-Islam, anti-sjw camp and became more overtly political. Since the content was mainly focused around bashing Islam and left leaning people it caught on with conservatives who co-opted it and drove it further and further right over time to the point where many of the original online skeptic figures are now openly religious and advocate for a white ethnostate. The rhetorical strategies have remained consistent throughout time though, they were the original online “facts don’t care about your feelings” “debate me bro” types, they’re essentially the source of online conservative rhetoric today. This is mostly spoken from personal experience since I’ve been around since the late days of new atheism.
Kavernacle, can you do a video on Kaitlin bennett
Video essay coming on my channel.
Please no
@@C0M0estas so that he can chat shit about them just like any anti-SJW he has talked about
Islam is what Christianity is jealous of, not against.
How come there is no debunk videos or critical videos about Douglas Murray or is he seen as a trivial figure in Great Britain?
Honestly never even heard of him until I did some research for this video - add him to a sea of old white racist conservative men who write for the Time/Mail lol
Shaun has a video on the Bell Curve.
@@stilltoomanyhats It's about CHARLES Murray and not Douglas. I appreciate that Shaun makes thorough videos but I belong to the camp where 2 hours of videos are too long and are detrimental and cause inflation of information. If videos were a book or lecture I'd read watch them.
@@dismayd3955 sorry my bad, got my racist Murrays mixed up.
if Sam Harris instead directed his time he spent with Murray to the religious demagoguery in the US government, maybe i’d still respect him. If he was more interested in the socio-economic exploitation of blacks in the US (with the help of Christianity), it would make more sense for him as he self-proclaims to be on the left
Your criticism of Sam Harris in that specific clip is rather odd friend. I think what he was pointing out was what trump said not that it more or less special because he said it in Poland. Like I think he just literally means - like a reference so maybe we can look it up as the listener so we could confirm for ourselves.
Not a biggie. You seem rather smart and have good approach to analysis. Hope to here more from you.
They ARE savages.
I'm surprised you haven't yet made a video about the British origins of the alt-right. Jonathan Bowden, reputed to be Britain's greatest contemporary orator, remains a cult figure among online dissident rightists.
Dang, was so hoping you just show the video of Spencer getting punched in the face and end the video. Never get tired of seeing that clip.
You’re generalising a group of people here, which is something you condemn yourself all the time.
I expect better from your videos. Very disappointed.
Great
Uhm I don’t think there was much if any generalizing. Important intellectuals in the New Atheist movement, with whom many in that movement regard as important figures, were critiqued on world views they hold. The arguments were well made (in my opinion) and not hyperbolic. As a former new atheist I found this video quite good.
Lol, as if tRump himself actually wrote that speech from Poland 😂
And tRump preaching about values is utterly hilarious.
This is the thing with Harris, he sounds intelligent, but his substance is just shallow Right wing populism that’s interchangeable with tRumpism
And btw Iran hasn't invaded anyone in the modern era.
Accidental reupload?
No it’s an extension of the last one
@@TheKavernacle Ah my bad, I saw the thumbnail for the previous in my suggestions and thought they looked the same (just the pepe instead of the moon and star)... Also they both start with the same Hitchens interview! :p
Wow great vid
3:02 "Nucular weapon" Ouch.
Ok, saw the rest of your video...
Bro, like but democracy be like that though. If the majority decide to go J-law we aren’t designed in the democracy to respond without war. Yeah, so I know this sounds crazy but the reality is that if a set of humans simply say “we are special so we BELONG on top” and then that’s a problem. Obviously, this is why democracy is so popular now. Tolerance yes, but understanding the relationship is important.
.... I think your arguments are rather short sited. I don’t know about the alt right link. I just know from countless hours of content I have observed specifically by the two men you charge. One Hitchens, which shame on you cuz you would not have been able to answer to him. And Harris. And although I didn’t always agree with their takes, I know them for sure NOT to be as you have tried to portray. Rather underhanded. The idea is much more complex than that, and will require new ways of thinking for you.
Best journey friend.
Great satire, well done buddy
Who else thinks this guy will be red pilled by this time next year?
If your talking about Harris he basically is already there - if you are talking about me - I made this video nearly a year ago - so no chance
Wow how to generalize
Could you throw together a Playlist of your videos on sam harris?
Hitchens did get weird, bordering on right-wing, in the latter part of his life, but he was never an Islamophobe like Harris is and was from the very start (my personal view of Harris is that he hides a far-right agenda behind a thin veneer of atheism, not actual atheism at that since he considers one religion worse than the others). Dawkins, in my view, makes no difference between religions. He thinks they're all equally detrimental to society.
@Mark Morris
If you have evidence to support this claim, please provide it. Because that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
I have watched and read Dawkins extensively and have not come across any such comments, so I highly doubt it. But, of course, if you have anything to back up your claim I am willing to reconsider.
@Mark Morris
Thank you very much for this! I thought better of him than that, but since he's clearly gone the way of Sam Harris, there goes my last shred of respect for the man (what with his transphobic remarks a year or so ago).
Anyway, thank you for enlightening me! :-)
@Mark Morris
In my case I think it's because I had a positive view of him (as a stalwart defender of science in a world where religious people were trying to undermine the very foundation of it, i.e. evidence based research), and as such, I think I found it hard to make the mental leap of him being a force for "good" as it were, to him being just another talking head promoting Islamophobia while hiding behind the atheist moniker.
I excused his earlier collaboration with Sam Harris because he always made sure to not single out any particular religion. But after his transphobic statements I distanced myself from him because, of course, you cannot claim to be a humanist and then express bigoted remarks (especially when it comes to such a vulnerable group as the trans community).
I still thought his fight against religious influence in science had been worthwhile and was willing to acknowledge his accomplishments in that field. However, after reading the links you provided, one has to wonder if he was just part of the racist, right-wing "culture war" and if he was ever sincere in his claim to not distinguish between the religions?
The mere fact that his intellectual honesty is in doubt indicates, to me at least, that he is not worthy of championing that struggle.
And yes, I have to agree with you about his "anglicanism", though for me as a Swede, I tend to just write that sort of thing off as the Englishness of a certain class. :-)
And I, of course, fully agree that the Anglican church just as the Swedish Church, which was instituted under much the same circumstances as the Anglican, (Gustav Wasa looting the monasteries and putting himself at the head of it) is more about veiled nationalism than anything else.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to express my views on the subject matter as precise as possible. :-)
Anyway; Cheers for bringing all this to my attention! =)
Sad to see the hungarian fascist government advertisment running on this video as well. hopefully there is a way of stopping it somewhere, somehow.
Are you watching from Hungary?
@@TheKavernacle Oh yeah I do!
13:43 I love that. Do you love me? 😍💋 💝💖❤️