Feminism is creationism.

EDIT: I was alerted on Twitter that the spoiler boxes did not correctly appear in the article. The boxes have now been removed, and the text they contained edited into the article itself. I’ve also moved some parts of the present article to its follow-up where it’s more fitting.


Feminism is generally considered to be an offshoot of Marxism. While it is undeniable that feminism borrows heavily from the ideas radicalized by Karl Marx and Fredric Engels, Marxism is not the “origin” of feminism as an ideology. 

Feminism is actually cobbled together from not just Marxism, but other pre-existing social ideology from their common ‘ancestor,’ one that even the most hardcore critics of feminism may not easily guess: Christian mythology.

* * * * *


The Promise of Utopia


All extreme ideologies begin with an ill-conceived notion of transcendence, typically ‘borrowed’ from some pre-existing dominant ideology with its own ill-conceived notion of transcendence. The bizarre ideological path to feminism begins with exactly such an idea: Utopia.

“Utopia” comes from the Greek ou (“not”) and topos (“place”) meaning “nowhere.” It refers to a society that may be ideal in theory, but impractical in reality. Plato’s Republic, for example, is Utopian in that sense. By far the most famous and influential example of Utopia is the Promised Land of Christian mythology.[1]

Philosophers of the time saw the Promised Land as more than mere mythology. For centuries, they had been wrestling with the notion of planned social reformation, and here was a new inspiration in this very ancient dialogue. They attempted to create a ‘creationist’ Utopian model from prominent scripture. For example, Genesis 1:27 (“… in his own image…”) along with Galatians 3:28 were interpreted in the sense that all people were created identical to one another, and from Genesis 3:19 (“… dust thou art…”) with Isaiah 64:8 (“… we are the clay, and you are our potter…”) people were thought to have minds that could be molded like clay. Such clever interpretations were brought to bear in a ‘Garden of Eden’ model of Utopia. This was likely the first attempt at a rationalized model towards what we now call ‘social engineering.’

For millenia, the idea of a social engineered Utopia were taken up by different people from different walks of life. Most were loyal to the cause of creating a better society for all, but there were some who considered ‘social engineering’ as a potential tool for control and manipulation.

Meanwhile, the creationist Utopian model was buried under—because it was way ahead of its time—and its significance was lost. Until, of course, the world finally caught up to it.

The Marxist Utopia

A long series of class struggles—centuries in the making—had finally hit the boiling point in the 18th century, giving way to major socio-political upheaval beginning with the French Revolution. The chain of events that followed—one of the most important in human history—along with the technological and scientific innovations of the Industrial Revolution, ushered in the new wave of liberalism and socialism, with ever greater and grander promises of socially engineered Utopia.

By the mid-19th century, Utopian socialism reached its summit in the form of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fredric Engels.[2] They prescribed that the ‘worker’ under-class, after being subject to repeated exploitation and oppression by the capitalist upper-class, would initiate a revolutionary overthrow. However, Marx had grossly miscalculated, his predictions did not follow through. Instead, it let loose a horrible sequence of death and destruction, becoming the very thing it despised, before finally being driven into the ground.

It is ironic that Marx and Engels, who had criticized other socialists for being overly moralistic, were the most Utopian of them all. Their model was simply a retake on the ‘original’ experiment in Utopian–Communism: the Garden of Eden. Just as one had failed in mythology, the other did in reality. Of course, powerful ideas can’t be contained; in this case, one of the greatest Utopian political philosophies of all time is unlikely to simply “phase out.”

All it takes is one ‘believer.’

[White] Women’s Movement

The events leading the 18th century created another abomination: feminism.

Western society has always been notorious for its absurd chivalric norms. While chivalric systems were originally intended as a safety net for women, it had become inhumanly ridiculous, elevating women above even the system of law while degrading men to beasts of burden. Being firmly embedded within the family system, the class system and sacralized by Christian culture, women in Western society had been placed on a high pedestal for so long that they saw chivalric privileges as their rightful claim, to be abused as they wished.

Then came the wave of liberalization, knocking at ultra-conservatism. Suddenly, white women—the most privileged group in human history—found themselves being subject to the very same laws and responsibilities as those “lowly” men who were quickly becoming aware of their chivalric bindings.[3]

The reaction was the “Women’s Movement.” It was the revolt of the primitive sex—cavewoman tantrums in the form of an elitist drama—who set out to prevent the chivalric status quo from being liberated. What was already radical to begin with, became even worse as more unruly women joined the fold. The women’s fora were the main propaganda centers, and “women’s issues” were the political currency. They simply needed to extend the various provisions already existing in the chivalric system. Some of the propaganda called sympathy for women by overblown exaggeration of issues of female-interest, while others set out to “shame” men for attempting to escape their chivalric duties. It also didn’t help that most feminists were extremely racist, some of them known to be dominant figures in the Ku Klux Klan.[4]

The ultra-conservative, discriminatory and elitist nature of feminism put it at odds with the emerging politics of that era. Several socialists of the time—Ernest Belfort Bax being an obvious example—openly exposed feminism as the prejudiced elitist farce that it was.

[The nature of feminism is beautifully captured by the Women’s Suffrage tantrum. The suffragists were a band of racist upper-class women—the primary beneficiaries of the status quo—who vandalized and terrorized both the locals and authorities in the name of their sex. Their only interest in voting powers was to extend chivalric privileges to the larger political sphere.]

In the subsequent waves of liberalization and democratization of Western society following Universal Suffrage, both the discriminatory and elitist goals of feminism were temporarily defused.


Social Constructivism


The latter half of the 20th century revived a zombified Marxism—what is now called Cultural Marxism—promptly institutionalized in western academia and politics.

On one side of this neo-Marxist coin, is what is now called ‘social constructivism.’ It is the assumption that individuals are born as blank slates, with all their individual differences written in by their social environment (“social conditioning”). Christened the ‘Standard Model of Social Science,’ it has since become central to all social science.[5][6][7] On the other side, there is the senseless abstraction of Marxist theory in which all differences between individuals and groups are viewed as class struggles—i.e. caused by the differential treatment of those individuals and groups (“power relations”).

All inequalities could be eliminated [said the social constructionist] by engineering the perfect social settings. ‘Equality’ was thus redefined as equality of outcome, rather than opportunity—sameness, rather than fairness—setting the stage for all Identity Politics and the culture of ‘Political Correctness.’ 

Surely, all of this is still the same old “dirt man,” but in a pretentious packaging of egalitarianism. Recycling a failed ideology does not free it from its own contradictions. 

If all individuals are identical, then where do these supposed differential treatment come from? Why should there be any “power relation” at all? First, there is the assertion that everything is socially constructed and that there are no fixed definitions, and then immediately, it is contradicted by assigning essential identities, labels and fixed definitions to everything.  

Marxist-Creationist Feminism

Feminism, which had already reached its extreme a century ago, became the obvious vehicle for identity politics. The result is a bizarre combination of Marxism and creationism, peppered with other inspirations from Christianity.

Central to Marxist-Feminism is the anti-family rhetoric advanced by Marx and Engels. The family is equated to capitalism in which the male head (“patriarch”) of the family is the capitalist ‘oppressor,’ with the women in the family as the ‘oppressed’ underclass, thus describing the relation between man and woman as a class struggle mediated by masculine–feminine “power relations.” And so by toppling the “patriarchal” family, capitalism is defeated somehow.[8][9] The notion of “patriarchal” “power relations” was further extended—with the malevolent and all-powerful patriarch of the Old Testament as the template—becoming the universally oppressive “patriarchy” described by Feminist Theory.

On top of this nonsense is the Blank Slate, which magically morphs genetically-imprinted ‘sex’ into socially-constructed ‘gender,’ where anything and everything about men and women could be changed through social intervention. This is the basis for what is now called Gender Theory.

Under the umbrella of neo-Marxism, the equality-of-outcome notion of ‘Gender Equality’ became “an ideal to strive for,” and ‘feminism’ re-imagined as a force for social and sexual liberation. As the primary vehicle of identity politics, feminism became the ad hominem champion. The ‘oppressor’ was extended from ‘male,’ to ‘white,’ and ‘heterosexual’; the ‘oppressed’ underclass extended from ‘women,’ to ‘non-white,’ and later down the line, ‘homosexual,’ with each new addition being actively exploited as cannon fodder and political currency for feminism. Suddenly, everyone’s a victim of the “patriarchy.”

Marxism, however, is not responsible for the vindictive nature of what is stupidly called “third-wave feminism.”

Being an ultra-conservative reactionary, feminism has always cast female self-interest as a higher form of morality throughout its history. Feminism in the present day is vindictive because it seeks to revive those chivalric privileges that it had failed to defend a century ago. 

In 1922, feminist Marie Petti vowed to “restore womankind to its rightful place.” She then went on to spew such nonsense as, “At the beginning of organic life, woman created man, and ruled him. He was a parasite, and a slave.”, “Life begins as female, life is feminine.” and also, “There is no need for any sex other than the feminine.” Such things are now widespread in academic feminism. [Ever heard of “testosterone poisoning?”] The Christian notion of the Fall of Man becomes the fall of men, spinning misandry (hatred of males) out of misanthropy (hatred of humankind) and forming the basis for the Great Goddess pseudoscience advanced by feminist anthropologists.[10]

[There are also nonsensical documentary films which portray human ancestors as having lived in “an egalitarian paradise under the benevolent Great Goddess.” And then came the evil men, who rebelled and invaded, replacing the goddess with gods and establishing patriarchies to oppress women. In the end, however, women will restore the Great Goddess and paradise returns. Unsurprisingly, this has caught the fancy of religious studies scholars.]

All of the aforementioned are clearly based upon the belief in ‘female sanctity,’ which is a chivalric notion deeply entrenched in Christian mythology, and more broadly in Abrahamic religion. Also from the same source is the feminist notion of “sexual objectification,” that sexual imagery somehow “degrades women” and promotes “sexual violence.”

The cycle of contradiction becomes even worse in feminism because its own interests are frequently at odds with the expanding labels of neo-Marxism. It has become so diffused that even women themselves are confused at the end of it. [Hence why feminism is splintered from the outside, and cannibalistic from the inside.] Men and women are supposedly identical most of time, but not at other times. The à la carte equality depends on whatever suits the narrative. If men and women are identical, or “equal,” then why is there supposedly a “power relation” between them? And why is it always in one direction? The entire academic feminist enterprise has been built around a farce of inescapable contradictions.

The entire lineage of Utopian-isms have failed time and again for one reason: the denial of human nature. At the end of the day, neither the ‘dirt man’ nor the ‘evil white man’ of identity politics is sustainable, and is doomed to cannibalize itself.

Cultural Marxism is simply one more in that failed line-up—and feminism is sitting right in the middle of it.

* * * * *

Feminism is radical by design.

It is a regressive, perverted ultra-conservative reactionary, repackaged with Dark Age mythology. There is no first-wave/second-wave/third-wave feminism, just as there is no such thing as “good,” “moderate” or “classical” feminism.

The claim that there is/was some ‘noble’ form of feminism is a recent invention by those who want to:

  1. cover up the actual origins/nature of feminism,
  2. distance themselves from the evils of feminism but still reap benefits from it, and
  3. believe there’s something more to feminism than there actually is.

Most critics of feminism are quick to go after the fringe types because they fail to realize that it is these so-called moderate feminists who have done the most damage.

[The follow-up article will be published soon.]


For further insight into pretentious “modern” ideologies, see philosopher John Gray’s Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. Evolutionary psychologist Steve Moxon has detailed Marxist-feminism in his excellent paper exposing the politics and realities of domestic/intimate partner violence.[11]

I have no doubt that the distortions of the truth by the radical feminists of our time will, someday, be seen as having been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the 20th century. Meanwhile, we still live under the aegis of that crime and to call attention to it is an act of great moral courage.
— Prof. Howard S. Schwartz, author of The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness


References

  1. Gray J. (2007) Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. London: Allen Lane. 

  2. Marx K & Engels F. (1848) Manifesto of the Communist Party. 

  3. Science Vs. Feminism. A Woman’s Voice: Selected Quoted, a compilation by Unknown History of Misandry

  4. Schwartz HS. (2003) The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 

  5. Goldberg S. (2003) Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences. Humanity Books. 

  6. Gross PR & Levitt N. (1998) Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

  7. Sokal AD & Bricmont J. (1998) Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picardor. 

  8. Weikart R. (1994) Marx, Engels, and the Abolition of the Family. History of European Ideas, 18(5):657–672. 

  9. Engels F. (1884) The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. 

  10. Young KK & Nathanson P. (2011) Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man. McGill-Queen’s University Press. 

  11. Moxon SP. (2014) Partner Violence as Female-Specific in Aetiology. New Male Studies, 3(3):69–92. 


21 thoughts on “Feminism is creationism.

  1. The spoiler boxes still don’t work. I had to refresh the page a few times just to get them to appear.

    You do realize that that some of the most important stuffs in your article are in those spoilers, right? And most of your readers are probably not seeing the text in those spoilers?

    Are those spoilers even necessary? IMO, you should just get rid of them and edit the text into the article ASAP.

  2. I admire your headstrongness in studying and learning about lines of knowledge way apart from your line of education and work.

    Let me bring to your attention this interesting site http://www.angryharry.com.

    You should be more cautious dealing with creationism. The mythology you call “Christian” has its roots before Christianism (pre-Socratic philosophy, Platonism and Aristotelism) and the pre-existent Middle Eastern monotheism (Moses is considered the oldest figure embodying it). It is a form of creationism; in no way this permits one to shame creationism in itself.

    There will never be a human knowing where, when, how, “everything” began. “When”, “where”, and the concept of causation are products of the human brain, as well as everything else.

    The World as Will and Representation, a Western traduction of centuries of Eastern sapiency, and Eastern sapiency itself (one can start from Vidyaranya) are our best antidote against the illusions our vanity and self-centredness make us vulnerable to.

    Science, and reason, and technology, are the religions of these centuries; they come with their large pack of myths.
    All what we can think matches the definition of myth; and all matches that of creationism.
    When you believe physics may provide the ultimate answer to the ultimate questions regarding being, how is that not a creationism? A creationism in which the role of God would be played by the originary force (for example).

    This (https://www.amazon.com/Essence-Nihilism-Emanuele-Severino/dp/178478611X) most high work of 20th century philosophy, unknown as all work from scholars who don’t work in powerful countries are, is the book of philosophy I would suggest to someone, if I had to suggest one.
    The second would be Creative Evolution by Bergson.

    Don’t let yourself fall for the trick of thinking being is made by force and numbers; it is being as we are thinking in our time, a creation of our mind like all past and future “worlds” and “universes” will have to be, to be made of forces and numbers.
    Mathematics and physics are so successful at describing it because they are creations of the same mind: the descriptors and the described are built with the same bricks.

    All what you say about feminism is matter-of-fact.
    But feminism… is a fraction of a larger landscape.
    It is not the only affliction of democracy; isn’t mediocrism another, and worse?

    I live in a region where the average IQ is 91 or 92.
    This morning I apprehended that in Japan students in school are grouped according to mental skills, and they receive different teaching, and proceed, obviously, at different pace.

    It opened a new view to my mind.
    I suddenly realized why all the time spent in school had looked, and had been, a drowsy waste of time for me.
    My country is one of the most progressive” and “democratic” in the world: not only anyone suggesting to group students in tiers by intelligence would have their career ended; actually, when 5th grade is over and “middle school” is to begin, there is the most care in distributing all the A-students uniformly across classes :))))
    Every class must have 2 or 3 As, and then an equal number of Bs and Cs.

    Isn’t democracy the tyranny of the mass?
    So, if I were you, I’d take our contemporary situation from a slightly different angle: the war on merit, and intelligence, rather than the was on men.
    Sure enough, the two things are braided together.

    1. Pretty sure Angry Harry has dropped a comment or two around here—didn’t know about the website, though!

      You should be more cautious dealing with creationism. The mythology you call “Christian” has its roots before Christianism (pre-Socratic philosophy, Platonism and Aristotelism) and the pre-existent Middle Eastern monotheism (Moses is considered the oldest figure embodying it).

      “Christian mythology,” as I understand it, extends from pre-Christian (as you say) and that is the sense that I have used here. The breadcrumbs to Marxist philosophy are hard to miss. (Famously exploited by Hitler in his anti-Semitic propaganda.)

      So, if I were you, I’d take our contemporary situation from a slightly different angle: the war on merit, and intelligence, rather than the war on men.

      I fully agree with you that our societies are veering towards mediocrism—idiocracy, actually!—and that democracy is undoubtedly glorified but necessary.

      The foolish “progressive” education system is exactly as you describe. I’ve seen more than my fair share of this nonsense across Scandinavia.

      I don’t believe that there is a “war on men” but it is very clear-cut that there is extensive folk prejudice against males specifically (a lot of which are “leftovers” from old-school ultra-conservatism, which is exactly what feminism is trying to revive).

      I also don’t follow the foolish notion that the modern world is “feminized” as some others have commented. It’s actually quite the opposite. While women have greatly benefited from modern amenities, the truly “liberated” sex of the modern world are men. For perhaps the first time in human history, men can operate very close to their maximum potential—both physically and mentally—without being condemned at every turn by ridiculous statist and chivalrous norms.

  3. Sorry to bug you. But how is your article on the origins of sex and the role of the male going?

    I am also intrigued as to why in some species males are the more dominant sex and in others the females are prominent

    1. No issues. I’ll be posting it sometime mid-August—for real, this time. 🙂 I’ve been working on it for nearly a year now because I’ve had to rewrite most of it. I’ve also had to reach out to some of the researchers for additional details and that correspondence took a very long time to sort out.

      I am also intrigued as to why in some species males are the more dominant sex and in others the females are prominent

      The small number of species claimed to be ‘female-dominant’ are not actually so. What actually happens in these species is that males disengage from females in the context of feeding. There is no dominance/submission behaviour here, only deference. There is no such thing as cross-sex dominant/submission behaviour either, it is always within the same sex—i.e. males dominate other males, females dominate other females.

      1. I think humans are the only exception to the cross-sex dominant/submission behaviour.

        The patriarchal family where the male is dominant over his wife and children is such an instance.

  4. Your conclusion is amiss as the core belief, desire and cause of feminism isn’t based on a belief in an all controlling force behind the shadows but a desire to strip away all control over oneself. That should also be enough to conclude that feminism is atheistic.

    Concepts like transcendence or a crave for perfection are all part of being human. As such anything can be argued to be related to anything by it ultimately being made by a human.

    If Christianity caused feminism than only as an opposing counter reaction.
    It doesn’t take much to conclude that feminism is naturally opposing Christianity.
    The former being the ultimate form of patriarchy, order and realization of unshakable values and the latter being the ultimate form of anarchy and rejection of any values as being oppressive.

    Atheism has proven time and time again to be the most destructive.
    Atheisms nature can be concluded with a look at its 90 year history of wide spread.
    Ultimate “freedom” of and from values and a general disorder are naturally inherent in and cause of the most destructive ideological fundament there is.
    Truly to realize a human’s full destructive potential he has to put himself in the role of the sole judge and maker of order. Now he has the power to justify what cannot be justified any other way.

    Fact: Atheism has the most kills of any ideology in history ever and that just in a fraction of the time and people.

    Looking at this causality of atheism with ideologies of disorder it can be concluded that feminism (the ultimate rejection of order) is rooted in atheism.
    Even apart of additional asinine beliefs in an all controlling patriarchy.

    The title should be: Feminism is a part of atheism.

    1. I’m not saying that feminism is part of Christianity or anything of that sort. Progressive narrative borrows heavily from Christian philosophy and then reinterprets into an abomination. Why wouldn’t the most powerful and influential ideology in the West be the main inspiration for crazed self-proclaimed revolutionaries? Religions prominent in the East have the same effect in their cultures.

      As for atheism, whatever you think it is, it simply means unbelief and nothing more. “New atheism” is not actually atheism at all. I do agree that there are some atheistic tonalities to feminism, but that is a general flavour of progressivism.

      Fact: Atheism has the most kills of any ideology in history ever and that just in a fraction of the time and people.

      That’s not a fact, not by a long shot. Unspeakable evil has been committed in the name of religion as anything else.

      EDIT: Btw, you gave me a good idea for a future article on feminism and atheism. Thanks! 🙂

      1. Apologies for responding so late. At first I couldn’t respond as this site was under maintainance.

        “Think about it, why wouldn’t the most powerful and influential ideology in the West be the main inspiration for crazed revolutionaries?”

        I don’t think that that’s an argument.

        “…it simply means unbelief…”

        Except that it is a very specific selective unbelief. Unbelief itself is a form of blind belief when there is no proof to justify it. You shouldn’t care about the existence of a god. You should make discontent of atheists that don’t believe in god and of people that do.

        “Fact: Atheism has the most kills of any ideology in history ever and that just in a fraction of the time and people.

        That’s not a fact, not by a long shot. Unspeakable evil has been committed in the name of religion than anything else.”

        Your opinion can’t debunk or make facts.
        The most pure form of evil can only be committed when it is believed to be a good deed.
        Who is more likely to do so? The Christian with an independent moral compass that he cannot even influence or the atheist who makes his own one?
        Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,…
        It is beyond me how you could ignore this obvious causality.
        Only atheism allowed them to justify their ideologies.
        Tell me. How could you

        Atheism is the most destructive ideology.
        For its short time of somewhat widespread recognition it was responsible for at least 148 million deaths.
        That is being modest.
        And not even a 100 years is a short time.

        “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.”

        “What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now [Himmler] wants to start that all over again.”

        Adolf Hitler, behind the back of the public.

        “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

        Joseph Stalin

        To my earlier arguments I would like to add that feminists are in fact atheists.
        I would also argue that “Christian” feminists have never red the bible, are not taking it seriously or are just making it up as they go.
        Christianity doesn’t facility but suppress feminism. If feminism would be inspire by it then only as a rejection.
        With this again it is being shown that is the nemesis of feminism.

      2. Apologies for responding so late. At first I couldn’t respond as this site was under maintainance.

        “Think about it, why wouldn’t the most powerful and influential ideology in the West be the main inspiration for crazed revolutionaries?”

        I don’t think that that’s an argument.

        “…it simply means unbelief…”

        Except that it is a very specific selective unbelief. Unbelief itself is a form of blind belief when there is no proof to justify it. You shouldn’t care about the existence of a god. You should make discontent of atheists that don’t believe in god and of people that do.

        “Fact: Atheism has the most kills of any ideology in history ever and that just in a fraction of the time and people.

        That’s not a fact, not by a long shot. Unspeakable evil has been committed in the name of religion than anything else.”

        Your opinion can’t debunk or make facts.
        The most pure form of evil can only be committed when it is believed to be a good deed.
        Who is more likely to do so? The Christian with an independent moral compass that he cannot even influence or the atheist who makes his own one?
        Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,…
        It is beyond me how you could ignore this obvious causality.
        Only atheism allowed them to justify their ideologies.

        Atheism is the most destructive ideology.
        For its short time of somewhat widespread recognition it was responsible for at least 148 million deaths.
        That is being modest.
        And not even a 100 years is a short time.

        “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.”

        “What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now [Himmler] wants to start that all over again.”

        Adolf Hitler, behind the back of the public.

        “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

        Joseph Stalin

        To my earlier arguments I would like to add that feminists are in fact atheists.
        I would also argue that “Christian” feminists have never red the bible, are not taking it seriously or are just making it up as they go.
        Christianity doesn’t facilitate but suppress feminism. If feminism would be inspired by it then only as a rejection.
        With this again it is being shown that Christianity is the nemesis of feminism.

        1. Do you even realize that you just added more weight to NCs arguments?

          Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and a host of others all fall in the exact same Utopian lineup which NC argues as being the problem. Have you even read Hitler’s Mein Kampf? There is so much material that makes his Christian affiliation so blatantly obvious that I’m surprised you don’t know this. Christian anti-Semitism didn’t even begin with Hitler, it goes all the way back to the very beginning of the Christian era. Pol Pot was almost certainly a Buddhist driven by the idea of some Utopian heaven, again confirming NC’s argument. Stalin is the only confirmed atheist in the list but even his atrocities are entirely based off the Utopian principles taken directly from Christianity, and then rebranded Communism. Once again, you are confirming NC’s line of reasoning. The “obvious causality” is the other way around?

          Your entire counter is a self-defeating collection of fallacies. It is outrageous and pathetic that you think there’s no such thing as human solidarity and we can only be good to others under the tyranny of some nonsensical religious framework. This problem of misguided moralization is precisely what NC is pointing to!

          You are so blinded by your own ideology that you assumed in advance that the guy was an anti-theist and therefore your adversary. He writes ONE article that makes some obvious connections and boom, he’s automatically an evil atheist out to destroy your precious beliefs. For the record, NC is known for being a pantheist. He disagrees with the “new atheist” idiots probably just as much as you do because they are yet another group who don’t practice what they preach.

        2. Have you even read Hitler’s Mein Kampf?

          Adolf Hitler was a politician and a propagandist. I would take whatever he says or writes with a grain of salt.

          It is outrageous and pathetic that you think there’s no such thing as human solidarity and we can only be good to others under the tyranny of some nonsensical religious framework.

          This I agree. However, don’t forget that religious beliefs are also part of evolved human psychology.

          Either way, none of this is relevant to the article.

        3. Outrageous and pathetic. Ever heard of propaganda? And do you even read?

          “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.”

          “What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now [Himmler] wants to start that all over again.”

          Adolf Hitler, behind the back of the public. Notice the “behind”.

          Tell me what sense it makes for hitler to go up against a 99% christian demographic.

          “…,but even his atrocities are entirely based off the Utopian principles taken directly from Christianity, and then rebranded Communism.”

          Baseless assumption. You can’t just make stuff up as you go. Throughout history men have always craved an Utopia. But of course inherently atheistic communism would never have happened if not for Christianity.

          “Your entire counter is a self-defeating collection of fallacies.”

          Emotional baseless assertion.

          “…that you think there’s no such thing as human solidarity and we can only be good to others under the tyranny of some nonsensical religious framework.”

          Emotional baseless assertion. I never said nor even implied that. My actual reasoning regarding this is that atheism leads people to only be moral when there is an incentive or risk involved. This is simply because there is no such thing as an independent moral compass outside of the ego in an atheist’s world. This also allows him to be completely amoral.
          Or as said, true evil can only be done when the evildoer believes to do good.

          “This problem of misguided moralization is precisely what NC is pointing to!”

          In atheism there is no guidance aside from the ego and the incentives and risks of a group.

          “You are so blinded by your own ideology…” Emotional baseless assertion.
          “…that you assumed in advance that the guy was an anti-theist and therefore your adversary.”

          Emotional baseless assertion. I never said or implied that.

          “…he’s automatically an evil atheist out to destroy your precious beliefs.” Emotional baseless assertion. If I would make an actual guess about non controversy’s person I’d say that he is as moral as they come. Taking into account his awareness of feminism which could imply that he is aware of values too.

          “…ONE article…” His website has always featured the assertion of “feminism is the new creationism” I find that insulting and nonsensical.

          “…NC is known for being a pantheist.”

          He may call himself and believe whatever he wants. He said that “feminism is the new creationism”. This can be used to conclude that he is no creationist. Which was what I did.
          As long as my arguments on ideologies still stand I have every reason to comment here.
          Looking at the fact that pantheism doesn’t have a moral compass outside of the ego either, he should feel obliged to answer.

        4. Do you really think that insulting people without providing any facts or even logical arguments to support your discourse will accomplish anything other than making you look like a fool?

          If you post your comments only for yourself, if your goal is to convince yourself, if your goal is to give yourself a feeling of righteousness, then I guess you can continue to post (and people should simply ignore you). But if it is to sway people into having the same feelings as you do, then it’s just a waste of time. Insulting people never convinced anyone of anything.

        5. “If you post your comments only for yourself,…”

          Do you really think that you could skip having to answer by pandering to emotions?
          That was also not an argument either.

          With “outrageous and pathetic” I was simply giving back what I was called.
          Unlike you I only “used” this here too alongside sound and on point arguments.
          But how could you know? You only seem to be focused on one side of the argument here and only on trying to find an ever so slight mistake I make.
          You failed.

    2. Feminism is not simply desire to strip away all control over oneself, it’s just the regular ideological movement which tries to impose itself to others and control society. Feminists constantly push for popular actions and government control to force everyone to comply with their ideology, and they try to silence by any means possible anyone who disagrees.

      Feminism is not a counter reaction to Christianity, it’s just the feminized version of what humanity do since the birth of civilization. Feminism is like the new Ghostbusters. Same story, but with women instead of men.

      As for saying “atheism has proven time and time and time again to be the most destructive”, this is just wishful thinking and self-imposed blindness from your part in order to justify your need for an imaginary “divine” to “guide” you. Your “fact” that atheism “has the most kills” can only be achieved by completely distorting reality.

      Hint : Hitler and Stalin rejected their religion only because it was an obstacle to their personal utopia they wanted to create, utopia which was not about atheism, and their dream for power. They were against religion only for that reason. Both would have preferred if the “God” would have been on their side.

      1. “Feminism is not simply desire to strip away all control over oneself, it’s just the regular ideological movement which tries to impose itself to others and control society.”

        Emotional assertion and distraction. I never even said that feminism is in any way different from other ideological movements.

        “Feminists constantly…”

        I never argued this.

        “Feminism is not a counter reaction to Christianity, it’s just the feminized version of what humanity do since the birth of civilization. Feminism is like the new Ghostbusters. Same story, but with women instead of men.”

        Another baseless assertion. Read Jacob Watsons book “Rise and fall of ancient civilizations”.

        “…this is just wishful thinking and self-imposed blindness from your part in order to justify your need for an imaginary “divine” to “guide” you.”

        Attacking the person doesn’t refute the argument.

        “Your “fact” that atheism “has the most kills” can only be achieved by completely distorting reality.”

        Atheism is the most destructive ideology.
        For its short time of somewhat widespread recognition it was responsible for at least 148 million deaths.
        That is being modest.

        “Hint : Hitler and Stalin rejected their religion only because it was an obstacle to their personal utopia they wanted to create, utopia which was not about atheism, and their dream for power. They were against religion only for that reason. Both would have preferred if the “God” would have been on their side.”

        “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.”

        “What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now [Himmler] wants to start that all over again.”

        Adolf Hitler, behind the back of the public.

        “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

        Joseph Stalin

        They didn’t believe in a god.
        That being said you’re baseless assertions ran rampant again.

        Is it that farfetched to believe that when there is nothing to guide humans, they guide themselves in whatever way they please? When there is no objective external good or evil that they start making their own?
        That can only be based on their own egoistic preference? As shown by historic example?
        As there is no other absolute one anymore?
        Is it so much to assume that by doing this they also reject anything else that doesn’t fulfill their ego?
        Is it now such a stretch to assume that feminism is atheistic? Especially as the patriarchy of Christianity is incompatible with feminism?
        “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
        1 Timothy 2 11-15

        “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”
        1 Corinthians 11:7

        Doesn’t that sound incompatible with feminism? Any feminist who claims to be christian can also not be much so.

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/29/why-feminists-less-religious-survey

        Ignore the unqualified talk and just look for the facts in this link.

        It is also remarkable here that atheism has trouble with their women quota. This too shows how atheism is about stripping away authority over one’s life (expanding the ego) and also how women crave guidance.

        Ignore the talk and just look for the facts in this link.

        1. You are just another example of a deluded ideologue. How do you explain the fact that the most atheistic areas of the world are also the most collectivist and authoritarian (East Asia)? If atheism is about stripping away external authority, then why are so many atheist ideologies totalitarian? Also, that link you mentioned didn’t say anything about women needing guidance. If they did then why are so many of them avoiding it as much as possible?

          Atheism is simply non-belief in deities, it has for no implications for anything else. Claiming God as a basis for values doesn’t make it objective.
          https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/six-reasons-why-objective-morality-is-nonsense/

          148 million deaths out of over 3 billion people is nothing compared to the millions of deaths in the name of religion throughout history.

          “Is it that farfetched to believe that when there is nothing to guide humans, they guide themselves in whatever way they please? When there is no objective external good or evil that they start making their own?
          That can only be based on their own egoistic preference?”

          Please, Christianity itself was the creation of power-hungry Jews out for their own self-interest. There is nothing “transcendent” about your cult. http://smash-christianity.blogspot.com/2015/01/paul-apostle.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA *