Sunday, November 23, 2014

In China, Communism Depends On Atheism

Without Atheism, Communism collapses:
China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism

" This prohibition against religion has been a “consistently upheld principle” since Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, declared Zhou. “It’s impossible to have another choice besides the dialectical materialist worldview.”

Zhou warned that if CPC members were allowed to have beliefs in various religions, the Party “would become a loosely bound group that can be broken down due to individual gain.” Consequently, he wrote, members must have “a united worldview.”

Zhou noted: "Without the foundation of the worldview, the mansion of the Party's ideologies, theories and organizations will all collapse. We could no longer be called the 'Chinese Communist Party.'"

Faced with rampant corruption by top Communist Party officials and billionaire princelings who run many of China’s largest corporations, CPC leaders have been investigating and prosecuting some high-profile offenders and making examples of them (see here and here).

Some Communist Party critics have suggested that the spiritual values imparted by religion might help reduce the immorality and corruption that is now so widespread amongst the CPC leadership. Zhou avoided directly confronting the issue of rampant corruption among the CPC’s officials, but declared that “blaming atheism for moral decline is an old absurdity.”

“Whether the general moral level of Chinese improved or declined since the reform and opening up needs to be specifically analyzed,” he said, referring to the policies initiated by paramount leader Deng Xiaoping in 1978 that introduced elements of a “socialist market system.”

As we have reported recently, Chinese authorities have been accelerating their attacks on religious believers, imprisoning Christian leaders and demolishing churches, even though China’s top leaders continue to insist that the Communist regime allows complete religious freedom."
[emphasis added]
Note the rationalizations and lies which are necessary to maintain Atheism as the lynchpin supporting the deadly Leftist totalitarianism.

Hm. I Expected At Least a "Not Black Enough" Attack

The silence of the colored people

"VOTERS on Election Day chose Tim Scott as South Carolina’s U.S. senator. They also sent Utah’s Mia Love and Texas’ Will Hurd to the U.S. House of Representatives. Thus, the 114th Congress will include three black Republicans. This is a new high-water mark for black Americans.

Too bad the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People couldn’t care less. (America’s oldest civil-rights organization still plasters that retrograde expression all over its logo and website.)

NAACP has yet to congratulate, acknowledge, or even attack Scott, Love, and Hurd — now America’s three most powerful elected black Republicans. What you hear is the silence of the Colored People. Despite 10 separate requests for comment on this “advancement of colored people,” I could not squeeze a consonant out of NAACP’s Baltimore headquarters, its Washington, D.C. office, or even its Hollywood bureau."
The NAACP has always been a Victimhood Group. When blacks go off the Victimhood Reservation, they become dead to the remaining Victims. Usually, however, they are soundly vilified before being declared dead.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Oh Good.

The next Ferguson disaster:
Lawyers descend on Ferguson ahead of grand jury decision

"Hundreds of civil rights lawyers from across America are descending on Ferguson, Missouri as police and protesters prepare for a grand jury decision on whether to charge the officer who killed an unarmed black teenager in August.

The attorneys are arriving in Ferguson as talks between protest groups and police have stalled over a refusal by officials to rule out the use of riot gear, tear gas and militarized equipment if demonstrations turn violent should a grand jury decide not to indict police officer Darren Wilson, protest leaders say."
It's their civil right to loot, burn and try to kill cops' families without having to worry about well equipped police stopping them... Eric Holder told them that it's freedom of speech.

Frisky Fingers at Mount Holyoke

All-women’s college offers sex toy training

"After recently allowing transgender students to enroll, an all-women’s college is offering consistent sex toy workshops to its students upon request.

Mount Holyoke College (MHC) provides a training called “Frisky Fingers, Vibrating Toys, and Fun with 1: The Beauties of Masturbation (Sex Toys).” The workshop is funded by MHC’s Health Center but is free of charge to students.

"This workshop offers space to discuss the ‘ins and outs’ of masturbation and sex toys,” the event description reads. “It covers self pleasure, basic anatomy, and the female response cycle. This workshop also provides a variety of examples of sex toys, along with a discussion of how to best clean the toys and reduce the transmission of STIs during play.”

The workshop is put on by MHC’s Peer Health Educators and In*Touch, a sexual health education campus group “dedicated to providing accurate sexual health information and fostering an open and safe environment that breaks down stereotypes by reaching out to the diverse communities of Mount Holyoke College.”"


VIDEO: Berkeley students prefer ISIS flag to Israeli flag

" I went to the bucolic campus armed with a flag that represents the greatest evil known today, ISIS. If these are our best and brightest then we should all be afraid, very afraid."
Ami Horowitz
We should all be armed, very armed...

Thomas Sowell on Education Today

A sizable excerpt from Sowell's article at National Review:
Academia’s Unexamined Assumptions

"There is a remarkable range of ways of seeming to argue without actually producing any coherent argument.

Decades of dumbed-down education no doubt have something to do with this, but there is more to it than that. Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today, but is replaced to a great extent by ideological indoctrination. Moreover, it is largely indoctrination based on the same set of underlying and unexamined assumptions among teachers and institutions.

If our educational institutions — from the schools to the universities — were as interested in a diversity of ideas as they are obsessed with racial diversity, students would at least gain experience in seeing the assumptions behind different visions and the role of logic and evidence in debating those differences.

Instead, a student can go all the way from elementary school to a Ph.D. without encountering any vision of the world that’s fundamentally different from the prevailing political correctness. Moreover, the moral perspective that goes with this prevailing ideological view is all too often that of people who see themselves as being on the side of the angels against the forces of evil — whether the particular issue at hand is gun control, environmentalism, race, or whatever.

A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas. One sign of this sense of moral monopoly among the left intelligentsia is that the institutions most under their control — the schools, colleges, and universities — have far less freedom of speech than the rest of American society.

While advocacy of homosexuality, for example, is common on college campuses, and listening to this advocacy is often obligatory during freshman orientation, criticism of homosexuality is called “hate speech” and is subject to punishment.

While spokesmen for various racial or ethnic groups are free to vehemently denounce whites as a group for their past or present sins, real or otherwise, any white student who similarly denounces the sins or shortcomings of non-white groups can be virtually guaranteed to be punished, if not expelled.

Even students who do not advocate anything may have to pay a price if they do not go along with classroom brainwashing. The student at Florida Atlantic University who recently declined to stomp on a paper with the word “Jesus” on it, as ordered by the professor, was scheduled for punishment by the university until the story became public and provoked an outcry from outside of academia.

This professor’s action might be dismissed as an isolated extreme, but the university establishment’s initial solid backing for him, and its coming down hard on the student, shows that the moral dry rot goes far deeper than one brainwashing professor.

The failure of our educational system goes beyond what they fail to teach. It includes what they do teach, or rather indoctrinate, and the graduates they send out into the world who are incapable of seriously weighing alternatives for themselves or for American society."
Their primary unexamined assumption is that of their own personal superiority in all things, as demi-gods in demi-domains. It's a cultural narcissistic disorder.

Ferguson Juxtaposition

Two Headlines together at Drudge:
Holder Tells Law Enforcement to Behave

Ferguson Protesters Erupt Outside Police Department: ‘What Do We Want? Darren Wilson! How Do We Want Him? Dead!’
With police hiding their families from the roiling savages, Holder admonishes... the police. There is no question of Holder's loyalty in such affairs, and its not to justice nor peaceful solutions; he supports the rioters. Holder is interested in furthering racism and the war against whites.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Why Of Course

Glenn Reynolds, on Shirtstorm

HYPOCRISY, SMOKE, AND MIRRORS: Feminists And Shirtstorm.

"I had missed the one where Rose Eveleth wrote, “I assume the lander is just saving its harpoons so it can hunt down that bearded idiot in the gross shirt.” She really is a horrible person, and a horribly childish one as well. I mean, really, you’re covering a huge scientific event for the freaking Atlantic and you’re tweeting that a scientist is an “asshole” and suggesting he should be hunted down? Because his shirt has “ruined” the event for you? What is this, middle school?

Related: “The overreaction to Taylor’s shirt doesn’t just implicitly send the message that women are helplessly vulnerable to the smallest of unintended slights; it makes feminists look witlessly censorious and absurdly humorless.” Look?

Also: Julie Bindel in The Guardian: Feminism is in danger of becoming toxic.

UPDATE: Oh, and I’d somehow missed this by Cathy Young in Time: How to Turn a Cool Moment Into a #ShirtStorm. “Sadly, the brouhaha over Taylor’s shirt overshadowed not only his accomplishments but also those of his female teammates, including one of the project’s lead researchers, Kathrin Allweg of the University of Bern in Switzerland. More spotlight on Allweg, Grady, Alexander and the other remarkable women of the Rosetta project would have been a true inspiration to girls thinking of a career in science. The message of ShirtStorm, meanwhile, is that aspiring female scientists can be undone by some sexy pictures on a shirt—and that women’s presence in science requires men to walk on eggshells, curb any goofy humor that may offend the sensitive and be cowed into repentance for any misstep. Thanks for ruining a cool feminist moment for us, bullies.”

They are bullies. And, like Mean Girls everywhere, they are lacking in any real talent besides that of making other people unhappy and stirring up drama. I do not respect them, and there is no reason why anyone else should. Most cuttingly, I see people on Twitter calling them #WestboroFeminists. That seems about right. They’re willing to invade any event and make it all about themselves.

Also: My mistake. The “harpoon” item was a retweet by Rose Eleveth, not an original tweet, which explains why it was new to me. Retweets aren’t necessarily endorsements, though I suppose all the hearts in front of it from Rose indicate that in this case it was. Also, pretty darn middle school."
In danger of "becoming" toxic?? It has long been toxic. "WestboroFeminists": perfect description.

And the idea that feminists would ever show appreciation for actual accomplished and strong women has long been falsified. All the abuse dumped on accomplished conservative women shows conclusively that feminism is just another three-class, Leftist, totalitarian pursuit to falsely enhance the weak by denigrating the strong who won't be intimidated and do achieve. Dr. Condoleezza Rice comes to mind.

More: Why Government Schools Are Child Abuse

Parents furious over Florida school's surprise 'active shooter' drill

"An unannounced “active shooter drill” at a Florida middle school left teachers and students frightened and confused, and has angered parents who say police and administrators terrified their children.

The Thursday morning drill at Jewett Middle Academy in Winter Haven began when the school principal announced the school was going on lockdown. Winter Haven police officers then burst into classrooms brandishing guns, including an unloaded AR-15 rifle, to check on students huddled in the dark. Teachers were also clueless a drill was taking place.

“All of sudden there was a gun barrel,” 8th-grader Xavier Tate told "Fox & Friends"Sunday, describing what he saw from his classroom. “We didn’t know it was a drill. We thought it was a gunman (coming) right through the door.”

“It was very scary,” he said."
Video at the link.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Rape Charges Enable Feminism

Where would feminists be without their presupposed ubiquitous rapists? Well, they would have approximately nothing to hyperventilate and faint about. Feminists NEED society to be a rapist society, and all non-feminists to be rapists-in-waiting. These fantasies enable them, propel them, nourish them with fodder for their hate.

They must have "safe places" to escape the paralyzing "triggers" that come from possible encounter with contrary data and opinion. They must be stroked and resuscitated from their shrieking in fear if they are ever offended in any manner. In short, they are too weak to stand on their own as responsible adults.

Even the mere presence of a debate featuring a speaker who presents contrary data causes emotional hysteria, as this debate at Brown demonstrated:
"Reason contributor Wendy McElroy and liberal feminist Jessica Valenti debated campus sexual assault, rape culture, and due process at Brown University on Tuesday afternoon. The debate preemptively generated student protests, alternative events, and even a statement from Brown President Christina Paxson.

These reactions had one thing in common: disdain for McElroy's perspective that rape is the work of a small number of serial predators, rather than a cultural phenomenon. Paxson lamented that view in her campus-wide email, writing, "I disagree. Although evidence suggests that a relatively small number of individuals perpetrate sexual assault, extensive research shows that culture and values do matter."

McElroy's contrarian perspective on rape was in fact so traumatizing for certain members of the campus that they felt they needed to create alternative events. Some students organized a "BWell Safe Space." According to The Brown Daily Herald:
Students who may feel attacked by the viewpoints expressed at the forum or feel the speakers will dismiss their experiences can find a safe space and separate discussion held at the same time in Salomon 203. This “BWell Safe Space” will have sexual assault peer educators, women peer counselors and staff from BWell on hand to provide support.
No student should feel the need to be protected from an opinion. But those who sought further insulation from McElroy's perspective were invited to attend another alternative event, which promised "The Research on Rape Culture." Samantha Miller of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education explained why this nonsense is insulting to students, as well as the debate participants:

Given the debate organizers’ prior arrangements to provide support to anyone who actually felt the need for it, Paxson’s choice to counterprogram the event makes little sense in terms of “emotional safety.” But it makes all the sense in the world if you assume the real goal is to provide an intellectual cocoon for students—an effort to create a ideological bubble on campus in which students’ beliefs will be free from challenge.

It's a miracle the debate even took place at all, considering how allergic Brown seems to be to constructive discussion of controversial topics, but McElroy and Valenti were able to make their points. McElroy's main argument, according to The Herald:
McElroy said rape culture exists in places like parts of Afghanistan where “women are married against their will” and “murdered for men’s honor” but not in North America, where “rape is a crime that’s severely punished.”

What’s more, those who politicize rape and assert the existence of rape culture imply that all men are guilty or that the accused do not deserve due process, McElroy said.

It is unacceptable that men can now be disciplined for rape through college hearings based on a preponderance of evidence rather than the traditional criminal justice standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “Let’s not build justice for women on injustice for men,” McElroy said, closing her talk.
And Valenti's:
Valenti never tackled the question of whether a preponderance of evidence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard for conviction of men in college hearings, but she did talk about other aspects of sexual assault as it relates to college campuses, such as the fact that alcohol plays a role in most sexual assault incidents.

“Alcohol is not the problem,” Valenti said, chuckling at the notion. “What we need to discuss is the way rapists use alcohol as a weapon to attack and then discredit their victims.” Rapists benefit from others’ insistence that a victim’s inebriation is to blame for his or her assault, she added.

Both speakers addressed how students might move forward in eliminating rape and sexual assault on campus.

“Stopping someone from telling a rape joke or saying they got ‘raped’ by a test” would be a start, Valenti said, but she also urged students to hold university administrators responsible for addressing rape on campus."
Let's see; women drink themselves stupid because all men are rapists and want them to be disabled? And then the women are discredited by their drunken stupor... no wait, it the drunken male who is at fault, always, because all men are rapists, and all PIV sex is rape.

Further, to suggest otherwise is, itself, sexual assault which damages the delicate nature of women just to be on the planet with such a suggestion. Not to mention on the same planet with male humans (aka rapists).

Feminism, it is obvious, makes some weak women feel strong by making other women into psychological basket-cases over trumped up charges against a fantasy foe: masculinity. They are all quite ill.

All Of GruberGate In Two and a Half Minutes. Oh, and John Stewart Too.

Pass This Around!

Atheism And Morality

Atheists are doubling down on their insistence that they are moral and that the rest of the world needs to accept that. The non-Atheist world is beyond skeptical, because the cry of "we are too Good" contains a word without meaning in the relativist utopia of Atheism. What do they mean, they are good? Anyone with education in such things knows that Nietzsche absolutely did away with Good and Evil, in his philosophical work on the subject, "Beyond Good and Evil". And Dawkins cannot judge anything Hitler did, because evil does not exist for Dawkins - except for things Dawkins hates.

So if there is no Good or Evil, how is it that Atheists can demand that they be seen as "good"? There are obvious and not obvious reasons for that. Let's take it from the bottom, up.

Atheism rejects any moral authority which is absolute or binding. It can't help doing so, because of evolution which "scientifically" doctrinally commits the Atheist to both Philosophical Materialism and to the animalism of humans. There obviously is no morality contained in either Philosophical Materialism, or in the human as animal. The claim that morality evolved is based on no material evidence whatsoever, and therefore is not empirical nor is it objective knowledge under the constraint of Materialism. So without any exterior source of morality, Atheists have only themselves as the source.

Atheists therefore claim that it is their special empathy which gives them the ability to morally judge situations on an individual basis. There being no set principles for judging any situation, the Atheist claims that empathy leads to justice and righteous decisions. But what then are "justice" and what is "Right" vs. "Wrong"? They reduce straight to merely whatever the Atheist claims that his empathy tells him they are, for a given situation.

The Atheist has done two things here. He has eliminated any ethical consideration from anyone but himself, thereby establishing himself as the ultimate moral authority, i.e., an ethical elite. And he has seized control - he thinks - of the actions and lives of others who are inferior to himself because they adhere to contrary absolute ethics and give the moral authority to a fictional source; so the Atheist considers himself the only and final moral arbiter. Justice and Right are exactly what the Atheist says they are and no more than that.

Thus an Atheist cannot be other than Good - in his own estimation. It is tautological, defined to be that way.

By eliminating the standards of behavior and instituting behaviors which are judged by Atheists and no one else, the Atheists have produced "moral" control for themselves of situations and of other people. They have removed the walls of civility and decency, and replaced them with the anarchy of behaviors which only Atheists can morally judge. And they judge differentially, based on class distinctions. If Class R does behavior L, it is OK; But if Class G does behavior L, it is Evil. That's how situational ethics works in real life.

Civilization is not a natural state. It is formed around necessary and consistent rules of civilized behavior. Situational moral judgment by elitists removes any possibility of knowing in advance whether your behaviors are "moral" under the Atheist's personal situational moral authority. Because the common man cannot know in advance whether the Atheists will approve or disapprove of his behavior, what, then, is the use of restricting one's behavior in advance? Why not moral anarchy, just like the Atheists propose for themselves?

In fact, under the modern morality of "tolerance and equality", it is arguable that there is no aberrational behavior at all. All behaviors are "equal" and must be "tolerated". But that is not how Atheist empathy works. In actual reality Atheists and leftists in general will not tolerate any behavior which might invalidate their authority, be it political authority or moral authority. So they are quite totalitarian in policing the behaviors of other people, while tolerating all behaviors of their own fully entitled class.

So it boils down to "tolerance" for any behavior of the correct class regardless of its nature and consequences; "equality" of outcome for my class by redistribution of their wealth and stuff; strict policing of the Oppressors and punitive retaliation if they upset me in any manner. To upset an Atheist is intolerant and therefore immoral under the Atheist dichotomous rules.

Atheist "morality" is actually a force of moral entropy, a degradation of civilization while promising utopia on earth, as the Messiahs promise to their Victim class which they perpetuate in actual suppression.

The New Morality: There Are NO Perversions

HuffPost and Feminists: Stop ‘Slut-Shaming' Because ‘Sluts Don’t Exist!

"Question: if there’s no such thing as a slut, how can anyone be guilty of “slut-shaming?”

Don’t dismiss it as one of those timeless philosophical conundrums (ie. “Which came first, the slut or the shamer?”). The answer is an important key to navigating the shoals of perpetual feminist outrage.

A key part of modern feminism seems to consist of dressing provocatively and then shrieking at men who are, well, provoked. And woe unto those who would suggest there are appropriate and inappropriate modes of dress or behavior. They are committing the unspeakable crime of “slut-shaming.”

The truth is, most people wouldn’t use such crass language. Feminists, however, are not most people. They’re happy to name a type of woman that they then say doesn’t exist. The latest example of this is a Youtube video by British videoblogger Hannah Witton, making the rounds on The Huffington Post and Yahoo!.

The video began with Witton asking, “What is so bad about looking like a slut, that you’d want to disassociate yourself from that?” She then read answers she received on social media to the question, “What is a slut?” Of course the answers she approves of bash men and “the patriarchy.” Then came the point:
“There is no such thing as a slut. People’s sexual behavior is none of your business and people can sleep with as many or as little people as they like and that does not make them a slut or it doesn’t make them a prude, it just makes them who they are and that’s their choices and it shouldn’t affect you.”
Witton then went on to claim that dress had no correlation with sexual behavior in this beautifully circular argument: “As much as you like to think it, there is no correlation. And also there is no such thing as a slut. So, however a woman dresses, she’s not a slut, because sluts don’t exist.”
Got it. Because there are no morals, then there are no moral failures. QED

Victimhood and the New Morality

EXCLUSIVE: Militant group offers cash rewards for 'location' of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson - and says ammunition will 'solve a lot of problems'

"A group describing itself as a 'Militant Resistance' to a 'corrupt police state' has offered $5000 for details of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson's whereabouts, MailOnline can reveal.

Officer Wilson, 28, has been in hiding on paid leave ever since he gunned down unarmed teenager Michael Brown, 18, on 9 August.

Now, in one of a series of incendiary tweets the RbG Black Rebels have stated, 'We are paying $5k cash for location of Ofc. Darren Wilson. Real $, no joke, no crime we just wana get his photo an ask him a few questions.'

And though the RbG Black Rebels insist this is not a bounty on the officer's head, the chilling offer is set in the context of a stream of violent online posts boasting of 'combat experience', 'stockpiling' ammunition, cleaning out gun stores and being #WarReady."
The elimination of moral standards by the AtheoLeft is coming into cultural maturity. When morality is said to be that which identifies and ennobles certain groups of people as official Victims of other certain other groups of people who are Oppressors, and justice is said to be the conquest of the Oppressor groups, without recourse to any standards regarding behaviors or facts of situations, then mindless revolution is inevitable.

The Messiahs have no intention of relieving the Victimhood group of their persecution, say by promoting responsible behaviors deigned to elevate their victims into personal independence and civil citizenship. So when the ennobled Victims become offended, as is inevitable and perpetual, their moral course is set by the Messiah message: the Oppressor enemy is a scourge which must, morally, be rebelled against. Having removed all other standards of morality well in advance, the Messiahs have installed barbarism as the de facto worldview of the Victim Category. It is that worldview which will be triggered unwittingly by the Oppressor class, unleashing the barbarians into their lawless and bloodthirsty frenzy.

At least that seems to be the theory, one which could easily result in nationwide release of barbarism. And that in turn could produce the forecast martial law, for which the new national police force seems well-armed and positioned for such an occasion.

The divide between local institutions of justice and the national U.S. Department of Justice was completed by Eric Holder and the Leftist lawyers who dominate the DOJ. The concept of justice at a national level has changed to identity-based, class-based exoneration by race, sexual orientation, i.e. class, while local concepts of justice remain focused on blind judgment based on objective facts of the case. This is a potentially fatal divide between national and local in terms of basic moral principles which are contained in set worldviews.

There is no question that the Obama administration is based on lying to everyone and pandering to Victimhood groups publicly, while associating itself internally with the wealthiest segment of the population on a quid pro quo basis. Actual justice and morality does not exist at that level. Nor does self-awareness, as it becomes obvious even to those duped at the polls that this cadre in power is possibly the most corrupt grouping of powerful people ever to control the U.S. government. And it is true, as Gruber has pointed out: the voters put them in power, twice, and that speaks to the stupidity of the American voter. It's not too hard to estimate that somewhere around half or more of the voting population is dupe-able with stupid slogans like "hope and change", and faux morality such as "tolerance and equality". And it's not too hard to find videos interviewing people on the street who do not know why the Fourth of July is a holiday. The nation is on the path to civil collapse under the elimination of actual morality, and the substitution of Leftist mantras of "tolerance, equality, Victimhood and Oppression".

Whatever savagery is unleashed in Ferguson at the release of the Grand Jury findings, it is caused by the AtheoLeft, and it will be exonerated by the AtheoLeft. The Victimhood bomb has been made and primed and is focused on Ferguson.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Messiah Gerrymandering and Leftist Racism as Virtue

“refined and sophisticated piece of federal legislation”

"A friend sent me this New York Times editorial regarding electoral districts in Alabama. It seems that federal law requires states to figure out where black and white voters live and then draw district lines so that at least some districts will have a majority of black voters. Alabama allegedly didn’t do this in the right way, leading the righteous New Yorkers to weigh in on how the ignorant Southerners should behave:

It is up to the justices to reaffirm the law and, as the election-law scholar Justin Levitt has written, to stop lawmakers from turning “a refined and sophisticated piece of federal legislation into a cartoon.”

I’m not an expert on the facts of this case and hence can’t comment on the merits of either side, but I love the characterization of sorting Americans by skin color as “a refined and sophisticated piece of federal legislation”."

Quote of the Day

“Harvard's policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense,” Dershowitz said.
Alan Dershowitz

Obama On Gruber

Harvard and the Victim Classes

Classism can't help but discriminate against groups of people who will not be Victimhood candidates to support the Messiah's self-image. In this case, racism is the Leftist tool to preserve their Victimhood categories and to persecute non-Victims (Asian-Americans in this case)
Harvard sued over affirmative action policy in admissions

"Affirmative action policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have been challenged in court.

A lawsuit against Harvard alleges the university limits the number of Asian-Americans it admits each year, arguing that white, black, and Hispanic applicants are given racial preferences over better qualified Asian-American applicants.

The lawsuit against UNC alleges the university is not in compliance with a Supreme Court ruling that concluded colleges trying to diversify their student population should pursue ‘‘race-neutral alternatives’’ first, rather than race-based affirmative action policies.

The suits were filed Monday in Boston and Greensboro, North Carolina, by the Project on Fair Representation."

The New Morality: Justice Equals "What We Demand".

Organizers Train Newly Minted Protesters in St. Louis

"“So what militant non-violent civil disobedience allows us to do is to create a container that we can channel it directly at the state, because this is not about bad apples. This is about a rotten system,” Sekou tells the trainees.

“Because you can be a good cop who doesn’t shoot black people but if you give out more tickets in Ferguson than there are actually people in Ferguson, that’s an evil system.”

Sekou then starts, “So we are confronting an…”

The audience finishes his sentence stating back to him, “evil system."

He continues, “[This is] not about an individual police or about individuals. This is about confronting an evil system. And the thing that guides us is love—not the kind of love that you see somebody and you think they’re cute—not that—deep abiding love. Say that.”

Attendees responded, “deep abiding love.”

“That’s what guides us, because deep abiding love says you’re willing to go to jail for what you believe in. Deep abiding love says you’re willing to risk your life for what you believe in,” Sekou says. “That’s what deep abiding love does. Deep abiding love in the front of tanks and tear gas and pepper spray says you will not bow down.”

Sekou tells the trainees again, “So we are guided by…”

“Deep abiding love” they say back to him. He says, “We are not confronting bad individuals but…” They respond, “an evil system.”"
And slightly later:
"And I also think we’re not going to get change in this society unless white people are just a little bit afraid. "
There is no chance that "self defense" will be considered anything other than police and state oppression by these Messiahs-in-training. A white cop must allow himself to be beaten to death because the black who is beating him is a designated Victimhood person, and therefore cannot be held responsible for his actions. Beating a cop to death is the natural outcome of evil Oppression of the Victim Class. Victims must act out in protest, you know; it's an expectation. So, robbery and beating cops are just natural expression; free speech in a sense. Cops, on the other hand, are the Oppressor Class, the "evil system" which the Messiah Class is morally obligated to hold a Moral Revolution against.

These proto-tyrants are going to remain in place, rioting for an indictment (regardless of the grand jury's findings); for a trial; and for the pre-determined, morally necessary conviction. The sentencing will cause riots because it is not capital punishment. If it is capital punishment, riots will be necessary to stop state brutality. Riots are just necessary, regardless. Because: "Deep abiding love", the faux moral principle of today's tyrant class. They will burn their city out of "Deep abiding love" which is actually hate for the designated "evil system" Oppressor Class, and love for their acquisition of power through domestic terrorism.

More: Reasons Government Schools Are Child Abuse

Primary school introduces unisex toilets to 'prevent transphobia'

" Angry parents have complained after a primary school introduced unisex toilets in a bid to 'prevent transphobia'.

Pupils were shocked to discover they had to share the 'gender neutral' toilets at the start of the school year, sparking concerns from parents.

Many say their children do not want to use facilities split with the opposite sex and it makes them feel 'uncomfortable'.

Harbour Primary School in Newhaven, East Sussex, has defended the move, which it says is about 'preventing transphobia'."
What is perfectly clear here? That the discomforts of normal children are of no concern; that the open top/bottom stalls predicting certain "unintended" consequences are of no concern; parents' concerns are of no concern. What is important here is the Narrative: tolerance. Just as in northern Britain, tolerance is more important than any consequences of their actions.

Here's the fundamental problem facing parents today: if you can't homeschool and you can't afford private school, then your child could wind up corrupted morally and intellectually due to the Leftist schooling s/he is forced to endure. That's why the Left fights school vouchers so vigorously - they lose not only head count and federal dollars, they lose their influence over generations of potential Leftist Victims and Messiahs, plus the ranks of the Oppressors increases.

Monday, November 17, 2014

The Dictators And The Three-Class System

It seems tacky to the point of being (almost) inexcusable to refer to a book through the review of someone else. Yet here I go.

The book, now on order, is "The Dictators"; the reviewer is at his blog called Vulgar Morality. The review was written in 2005; part of the review illuminates the three-class system of totalitarianism which was used by both the communists and the fascists, and is similar to the three class-system used today by the Atheist, Leftist utopian Messiahs seeking to dominate the west through class wars.

Excerpt from the review:
"Hitler and Stalin never lost a night’s sleep over the millions they murdered. Both thought they were in the right. They maintained that certainty in their moments of greatest power, and on the verge of disaster and defeat - in Hitler’s case, to the grave. Both erected and imposed on the populations they ruled systems of morality, of right and wrong action, that broke radically with the past.

This fearful transformation was accomplished by brute force, but it had theoretical underpinnings, which we must take at face value. The first step was the appropriation of modern science. The Nazis believed that racial theory followed from Darwin as transmitted by Haeckel. The Soviets worshipped at the altar of “scientific socialism.”

If one granted these premises, then science, with its immense authority, seemed to come down against the existence of universal moral values. Religions and philosophies that claimed universality were relics of a prescientific age. The same, of course, was true of the moral traditions of Germany and Russia, which derived to a great extent from Christianity and moral philosophy. Such traditions weren’t viewed as evil or wrong. They were unscientific, like a belief in satyrs and nymphs. They were false.

Cut loose from universal moral principles and from moral traditions alike, the totalitarians became emancipated from every theoretical restraint on behavior. They could build or destroy, nurture or kill, without qualms. In practice, both made a supreme moral imperative of the revolutionary struggle.

For the Nazis, the struggle was for racial purity and domination. For the Soviets, it was to build communism in one country. But such positive goals fail to capture the spirit of totalitarian morality. The orientation was always toward the enemy. The terms used conveyed an unutterable loathing and rage. The Jew and the capitalist wrecker were described as satanically powerful and cunning, and magically present in the most trivial acts: a joke, a careless word. They had to be destroyed.

That was the moral core of totalitarianism."

[Emphasis added]
Today's pajama boy leftists and feminist tyrants are milquetoast by comparison, of course. But their utopian plans for salvation of the Victims - usually themselves plus a co-dependent class of sycophants - depends on the valiant and moral struggle for marginalizing and demonizing the enemy class: The Oppressors. In the pursuit of utopia, of course. It is the same for all tyrants apparently. But their outcomes are somewhat different, with the outside enemy conquering Hitler, but with inside power struggles dooming Stalin.

The interesting need for a faulty view of science and using that to eradicate fixed principles for behaviors is also part of the current culture wars, with even scientists participating alongside the utopians who are ignorant of science altogether. In order for the three-class, utopian tyranny to flourish, all moral restraint on behaviors must be removed and replaced with the new morals of "Social Justice" which directly support the three-class Messiahs.

Zuckerman and the Pursuit of Atheist "Morality"

Phil Zuckerman On Atheism:
"Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being:
How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions
”The above information reveals that atheists and secular people have very clear and pronounced values and beliefs concerning moral, political, and social issues. As Lynn Nelson (1988, 134) has concluded, religiously unaffiliated people ‘‘have as well-defined a sense of social justice as weekly churchgoers.’’ But I would go farther. I would argue that a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually posses a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers. After all, when it comes to such issues as the governmental use of torture or the death penalty, we see that atheists and secular people are far more merciful and humane. When it comes to protecting the environment, women’s rights, and gay rights, the non-religious again distinguish themselves as being the most supportive. And as stated earlier, atheists and secular people are also the least likely to harbor ethnocentric, racist, or nationalistic attitudes. Strange then, that so many people assume that atheists and non-religious people lack strong values or ethical beliefs – a truly groundless and unsupportable assumption.”

Zuckerman is attempting to make a case for Atheist morality, by using the elitist ideology of "Social Justice". What he actually does is to confirm the obvious, which is that Atheists support elitist, top-down declarations of subjective principles concerning the ideology of Victimhood/Messiahism vs. The Oppressor Class. For example, he lists the environment, women’s rights and gay rights, each of which is purely a Victimhood Classification designed by the Messiahs for their own benefit.

Protecting the environment was previously called conservationism; almost everyone was conservation-conscious and responsible (save certain ethnic groups). When the environment became designated Victimhood status by the Messiahs, conservation gave way to bitter defamatory and financial attacks on the designated Oppressors of the victimized environment. False data such as the case against DDT was brandished by the environmentalists like righteous weapons of deities. That is when responsible people backed away. The salvation of Gaia became both perverted and profitable.

Women have every right that men do. Men cannot kill their offspring; but currently women can and do. So women’s rights is a phony cause, involving the right to kill, disguised as “choice” and “privacy”. It is a falsely designated Victimhood Category by the putative Messiahs.

Gays have every right to pursue their personal proclivities, except that instead of contractual obligations to each other, they want the patina of legal legitimization afforded to marriage by the government. In order to do that, marriage itself must be de-legitimized and forced to accept all associations as marriageable, without boundaries. Boundaries are like other restrictions: they represent intolerance. In a short time span, marriage will become a meaningless term, legally. Further, most violence on gays is by other gays; lesbian violence is especially high. AIDs was visited on gays by gays.

Further it is stated that, “ethnocentric, racist, or nationalistic attitudes” are more prevalent in theists. That is beyond merely doubtful, if one considers including all and every Atheist on the planet. Zuckerman and friends are infamous for not doing this, but by selectively declaring Atheist characteristics to be as they exist in selected locales only. If one includes Russia and China, the claim is seen to be false. Therefore it is proof of the bias inherent in Zuckerman’s claims.

"Strange then, that so many people assume that atheists and non-religious people lack strong values or ethical beliefs – a truly groundless and unsupportable assumption.”"

Zuckerman has proven to himself, at least, the tight bond between Leftist principles and Atheism. When one takes upon himself the mantle of moral authority, he moves straight into Leftism and the Three Class System which Zuckerman inadvertently acknowledges. In fact he not only acknowledges it, he insists that the Three Class System makes for "strong values or ethical beliefs"; and that is the case, but they do not represent actual morals. The Three Class System is not designed as behavioral restrictions on the two classes of Victimhood or Messiahs; it represents intolerance for any restrictions from the Other, the Oppressor Class, and immediate punishment even for the suggestion of such. The Victimhood and Messiah Classes have no moral or ethical restrictions; if a tactic works, then it is moral/ethical, as defined by Alinsky. Thus the belief system touted by Zuckerman is the inversion of a set of moral principles. It is behavioral anarchy for us, and behavioral restrictions for the Other.

So Zuckerman's implication that Atheism is a moral, caring, ethical belief system is false, according to to actual evidence, and despite anyone's claim to the contrary.

Feminism, Analyzed By A Feminist

Feminists Need to Stop Sounding False Alarms About Sexism

"Now, feminism is not a monolith, nor should it be. Just as feminism showed us there are many kinds of women—and men—in society, there must also be many kinds of feminism. This multiplicity is essential to its progress, for the contours of feminism are defined by the battles between various factions battle (although that’s not the most feminist of metaphors, is it?). Feminists have to not just hold society accountable but hold each other accountable to keep mainstream feminism from losing its edge. But there's also the risk of feminist overreach.
Let's try to unpack this. Without Feminism no one knew that "there are many kinds of women—and men—in society"? How obtuse must this author have been to need a radical ideology to teach her that? And this: feminists "have to ... hold society accountable..." Who made them God? Or goddesses? Or even necessary to acknowledge? Since there are few who hold themselves to lesser moral standards than feminists, how do they qualify to hold us accountable? The hypocrisy is a moral quicksand.

For a whole host of reasons, some for which BeyoncĂ© is responsible and some not, America is having a stuttering but nonetheless real conversation about sexism and gender bias and women’s rights—touching on issues from pay equity to rape culture to reproductive freedom. We need that conversation now more than ever, and feminists are driving it. But if feminism becomes like the boy who cried wolf—if girls, and women, cry sexism too readily and often—America will stop listening. The minute feminism becomes hypercritical and humorless, it becomes too easy for the mainstream to dismiss our more valid complaints. And let’s be honest, it’s kind of refreshing for feminism to be at the cool kids’ table of society at the moment, fraught and confining though it might sometimes be. Does anyone really want to return to the period of sidelined, shrill feminism?"
Let's take the issues of sexism and gender bias she lists: "from pay equity to rape culture to reproductive freedom".

Pay equity is most pronounced in Leftist governmental offices, from Congress to the White House. It is due to women's documented less work hours and more time off than men.

Rape Culture is a fabricated issue, despite the documented decrease in rapes over the past 20 years. And it partly stems from feminist redefinition of all male contact and conversation as "sexual abuse".

Reproductive Freedom means freedom to kill one's progeny for the sake of convenience.

So what we have are bogus issues, which the lesbian-driven feministas require in order to advertise themselves as both Victims and Messiahs. And "society" of course is the Oppressor Class of the poor feminists.

She says,
"The minute feminism becomes hypercritical and humorless..."
Sorry that ship sailed long ago. And this:
"...feminism to be at the cool kids’ table of society at the moment..."
If that is the case, then society has gone completely off the rails, into the drink, and is nearing the bottom of the sea of toxic ideology. What has happened is that there is a media clique within which feminists gaggle up, and that appears to them to be their whole world, the whole of society except, of course, for the hated but necessary Other (men), who count for nothing except for femintistas to abuse.

Finally she asks,
"Does anyone really want to return to the period of sidelined, shrill feminism?"
Yes, please. We don't need feminists to tell us that there are different kind of women (and parenthetically, men). We can decide for ourselves about the phony issues that feminists weep over. And we don't need Messiahs for women in general: women in general function quite well without feminists, and in fact reject feminist Messiahs as speaking for them, because in reality, most women are not victims of any cultural or masculine conspiracy. There are legitimate issues to be had: sexual trafficking and political cultures which, like in Rotherham, refuse to acknowledge a huge child rape culture due to fear of being called racist. Those are legal problems for which no civil person begrudges more effort. But those are not on the radar of feminists; they have no use as bludgeons against the necessary white male Oppressor Class. And that is all that matters to feminists.

Why Government Schools Are Child Abuse

Report: Chicago schools teaching ‘safe’ anal sex to 5th graders

"CHICAGO – A graphic sexual education curriculum meant for Chicago Public Schools’ (CPS) fifth and sixth graders shocked parents during a presentation given during “report card pickup “at the Andrew Jackson Language Academy.

The presentation included slides that are clearly not age appropriate, and include “demonstrations” of applying male and female condoms (FC), DNAinfo reports."
Copies of the slides are at the source.

Atheist Authors Lex Bayer and John Figdor Struggle With Logic

While this started as a review of an article at Salon, it has turned into a partial review of a partial bit of a book, and a bio. The book excerpt was at Salon, and the personal sketch was at MyTown, links below. The book is called, "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart".
It is yet another attempt to repackage Atheism as a moral pursuit, but without principles. So they attempt to come up with some principles, and the initiation of that attempt is described below.
The new atheist commandments: Science, philosophy and principles to replace religion
The authors of this new book, titled,"Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, $32, 188 pages)" are challenging the Ten Commandments, claiming that their new commandments are better than God's. This is a bold statement, arrogant enough to consider what revelations in logic analysis these two authors might have for us.
"We begin by suggesting a framework of secular belief. It begins with the simple question, How can I justify any of my beliefs?

When thinking about why we believe in anything, we quickly realize that every belief is based on other preexisting beliefs. Consider, for example, the belief that brushing our teeth keeps them healthy. Why do we believe this? Because brushing helps removes plaque buildup that causes teeth to decay.

But why do we believe plaque causes decay? Because our dentists, teachers, and parents told us so. Why do we trust what our dentist says? Because other dentists and articles and books we’ve read confirmed it. Why do we believe those accounts? Because they presented many more pieces of information confirming the link between plaque, bacterial growth, and tooth decay. And why do we believe those pieces of information?

There seems to be no end."
At this point the authors reach the infinite regress issue. They have already demonstrated that their logic is outside of Aristotelian logic because no valid and true deductive argument is based on "preexisting beliefs". In order for a deductive argument to be valid, it must have a certain form; in order to be true it must be supported only by true premises, grounded in self-evident first principles. But on they go:
"...the process of justifying beliefs based on other beliefs never ends—unless at some point we manage to arrive at a belief that doesn’t rely on justification from any prior belief. That would be a foundational source of belief.

But this creates a paradox of its own: we can only justify a belief by basing it ultimately on source beliefs, and source beliefs by definition have no justifying beliefs. So the only way to justify a particular belief is to start with an unjustifiable belief.

It’s like getting down to the last turtle to find it resting on … nothing at all.

How maddening! Instead of clarifying how we can decide what to believe, we’ve instead proven that the only way to justify beliefs is to acknowledge that certain principles must be accepted without justification."
Logic for them apparently is too much to handle - no wonder it's maddening; failing to recognize actual universal axioms, they presume that justification extends beyond accessibility, or at least is not accessible to them. No, self-evident truth is not a paradox, and they have not "proven" that; it's merely a lack of education and comprehension on their part: either they do not recognize self-evidence, or they have not heard of the First Principles of Thought given to the world by Aristotle, taught in every Logic 101 class, and presented in every logic text. Let's go through their whole conundrum and try to analyze their logic by comparing it with Aristotelian, disciplined deductive process.
"One approach to this challenge is to treat the problem the same way mathematicians approach proofs: they determine a core set of assumptions and then prove theorems based on those assumptions. Instead of presuming source beliefs are beliefs based on faith, let’s instead regard them as the starting assumptions for a logical proof. We can put forth a set of core assumptions and then develop a broader system of belief based on those assumptions. If the resulting system fails to create a cohesive and comprehensive system of belief, then we can start over. The initial assumptions can then be reformulated until a set is found that does lead to a consistent, meaningful “theorem of life.”"
And so they go completely awry and off the rails into the abyss, merely because they have not studied actual logic and have taken upon themselves to develop their own system. Aristotle and 25 centuries of logic students must be spinning in their graves.

What they propose here is to create arguments on varying sets of subjective starting principles, rather than principles which are self-evidently correct axioms of existence and truth, i.e., the First Principles. If the argument's conclusion turns out wrong with this particular set of starting premises, then try another set of subjective starting principles, different from previous sets of principles. Repeat, until your selection of "basic principles" finally gets the answer you like. If you like the answer, then you like the premises you have selected to support your answer.

The process of selecting premises to support a conclusion is a logic failure called "rationalizing". It is entirely different from discerning the principles of geometry by starting with a rectangle of known characteristics, then cutting it diagonally corner to corner and thus by previously knowing the area of the rectangle, dividing by two, the equation for the triangle is developed because the equation for the rectangle is known. In geometry the answer can be known true even visually, before the equation is developed (Area of a triangle=1/2(LxW)).

But this is not the case for disciplined deduction. Deduction of the Aristotelian genre (still taught in Logic 101 classes today) requires that there be known, completely true, First Principle grounded premises in order for an argument to be declared true - and further, the argument must be of correct form in order to be valid; and the problem of incorrect form comes up for these two, below.

Next they put into play "logic principles" the first of which is not actually a principle of logic, starting with Ockham's Razor:
"Two other ideas may be useful in selecting a set of starting assumptions. The first is to favor simplicity. This is called Ockham’s razor, after the fourteenth-century philosopher and theologian William of Ockham."
Einstein blew this away as a necessary part of logic when he demolished Bohr's simplistic model with his proof of Brownian motion; Einstein observed that a thing "should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". Ockham's Razor failed, demonstrably and scientifically, and it is not an immutable principle of logic; it is merely a suggestion.

However, the authors strike paydirt with their version of Reduction Ad Absurdum, which they should have applied to the First Principles before making arguments with random sets of premises.
"A second tool for choosing basic source beliefs is to think about what it would mean to deny a particular source belief. In other words, if a particular belief were not true, would the resulting worldview make sense?"
But they charge ahead toward the cliff of Materialism.
"We propose that to develop a coherent framework of factual belief, we need to accept three core assumptions:
1. An external reality exists.
2. Our senses perceive this external reality.
3. Language and thought are tools for describing and understanding what our senses perceive.
Here they go clear over the cliff: There is an obvious set of external reality which our senses do not perceive and that includes much of quantum mechanical functioning which is a verified science, as well as the nature of consciousness and agency which we detect only via their consequences and not their causes. This failure is explained in their next list:
"The First Three Non-commandments...

"To rephrase the three core assumptions in light of the concepts we have just discussed, our starting assumptions are:
1. An external reality exists, and “truth” signifies an accurate description of that reality.
2. Our five senses are our only means for perceiving this reality.
3. Language and thought offer ways to analyze, communicate about, and contemplate the nature of the reality.
These core assumptions can be summed up as (1) a belief in existence, (2) an ability to perceive that existence, and (3) instruments for using those perceptions."
In "rephrasing" and especially then in their summary, the authors are changing meanings slightly. Initially they implied an external, physical reality; now they have changed over to an implication of "all existence", and further the implication that all existence can be perceived, physically. They have illegitimately smuggled in the necessity of Philosophical Materialism, merely by wording prestidigitation.

By eliminating any possibility of knowing anything about non-physical reality via logical deduction, they have artificially restricted all reality and knowledge to material "things" which physically exist, and can be perceived by our senses. This is a dishonest restriction, both because it is hidden in implication, and because it summarily dismisses other options without even recognizing their possibility of existing.

But they take upon themselves to declare Three Commandments, based on faux "bedrock beliefs", i.e. faux first principles:
"Because these three assumptions are the bedrock beliefs of all subsequent beliefs we will propose, they will serve as the first three non-commandments:
"I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.
II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.
III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world."
So what they have done is to declare slippery principles which they declare to be non-commandments, that are actually rationalized conclusions which they are using to justify whatever set of first principles they need in order to produce those conclusions. This is circular and blatantly so: the conclusions are used to justify the premises, and the premises are selected to justify the conclusions. And it is also the logic failure of Affirming the Consequent. Further, as we have shown above, their logic chain is not based on actual First Principles, rather it is designed to smuggle in an ideology, that of Philosophical Materialism. Nonetheless, for them it is necessary in order to justify their march toward justifying Atheism. Certainly that is the point of the book. Bayer and Figdor are logic chopping, seeking only to justify their foregone conclusion, not seeking to allow Aristotelian, grounded, deductive logic to dictate a rational conclusion to which they must be bound. And again that is the definition of rationalization, a logic fallacy.

The idea that this represents "science and philosophy" as replacement principles for religion is absurd, maximally, due to its completely false use of "logic" to rationalize their desired outcome. There is no "science" involved and if logic is a subset of their "philosophy", then their philosophy is logically absurd.

Let's do an actual Reductio Ad Absurdum (which they have not done); but first reality under their theory:
1. If material existence is all that exists, then thoughts, memories and consciousness must be material "things".
2. When dead brains are removed and analyzed, there are no lumps of dead qualia, thoughts, dead memories, dead consciousness or dead intellect that are found; this leaves qualia, thoughts, memories, consciousness and intellect outside of physical existence, and under Philosophical Materialism, then, they don't exist. That's why Atheist philosophers concentrate on proving that they all are delusions.

3. When death occurs, life stops but there is no change in mass or energy in the system at that moment. Yet the system changes over from an open system to a closed system, and from negative entropy to positive entropy. Such systemic reversal at death requires a radical systemic change which is not physically detectable as changes in mass/energy. Possibly the losses are just brain states, but the brain is massively parallel and not clocked, so there are no discernable brain states. Under Materialism this is inexplicable.
Now if we take the contrary, i.e., allowing for the possibility of non-physical existence:
1. If more exists than just physical existence, then qualia thoughts, memories and consciousness might be non-physical. Thus they would not be found as physical lumps in a dead brain.

2. When dead brains are removed and analyzed, the absence of lumps of thoughts, memories, consciousness and intellect lumps is not contradictory.

3. When death occurs and life stops, the systemic changes which are not physically detectable as changes in mass/energy are not inconsistent with life being a non-physical attribute. Relying on non-existant brain states or other fabricated explanatory stories is not necessary.
It is the contrary to the authors' proposition which is reasonable, and the authors' Materialist proposition itself which is faulty. Materialism fails the Reductio logic test.

Presupposing the answer by smuggling the answer into the premises, is anti-rational. It is indicative of ideology-driven false "logic" procedures.

Presumably these two authors will continue with the rest of their hypotheses in Salon at some later date. Hopefully I will see that and will snag it as it floats by so it can be analyzed also.

... ...

But now I see that there is more on these two:
"Atheism's friendlier, humanist face"

"Bayer and Figdor want to emphasize atheism's "humanist" values. A humanist, they say, is someone who believes in the goodness of human beings and seeks rational ways to solve human problems.

Their book is set up as a series of steps that lead readers through the basics of using inductive reasoning and classic philosophical approaches. Bayer and Figdor also offer up their own version of the 10 commandments, which they call their "non-commandments." Their non-commandments, which include the belief that people can use rational thought as a tool for understanding the world, led both to conclude there is no life after death. "Some people might say 'I don't know' is a more appropriate answer, since I've never experienced death," Figdor says. "I've never encountered a mind without a brain. So if the brain dies, it's reasonable to assume the mind that lives in that brain dies with it."

They also reject the idea of an "objective morality" or an absolute moral truth. They argue instead for a "subjective morality," which guides people to understand their own thought processes so they can choose how to act in any given situation.

For those who fear this approach gives rise to a dangerous moral relativism, Bayer and Figdor say humans operate out of "enlightened self-interest," which teaches them they are more likely to be happy and get what they want if they cooperate. Humans also are biologically hard-wired to be empathetic and be interested in the happiness of others.

"I take pride in conducting my life in a moral manner and in my ability to derive happiness from the happiness of others," Bayer says. "I feel good when my friends think of me as a person of high morals and integrity."
The reason that Atheists use inductive reasoning is so that they can do the types of false arguments which are shown above. Creating a universal category of all-X to put observations into requires finding only items which are already in that category, such as Xn, Xn+1, etc. If it is a universal category, then no instance of a non-X can be found. But if a logic chopper encounters an unwanted and inconvenient Y which refutes the all-X proposition, then its existence is denied as a delusion, or the Y is claimed to actually be an X and we will know that some day. Thus finding objects which fit into Category X becomes a triviality, a banal pursuit devoid of meaning, because the process makes ALL objects fit into category X, with no proof that such is actually the case. I.e., X is universally the case with nothing existing which is not an Xn - because we have defined all objects that way for the convenience of the desired conclusion: intellectual fraud.

And again, that's why Atheists use induction and eschew deduction.

It is interesting to note the two non-coherent positions: "conducting my life in a moral manner" and "...argue instead for a 'subjective morality'..." Obviously if a person defines his own morality, then he will consider himself moral; the sliding scale of "...choos(ing) how to act in any given situation" makes one perfectly moral in "any given situation" - how could he go wrong? Resulting in a tautological position of perpetual "morality" regardless of what he does makes morality a completely useless word, in fact a mockery of something that conceptually means something else entirely. It is, in fact, the opposite of a moral system; it is a justification for whatever behavior one chooses to be called what it is not: moral.

I am moral because I decide what is moral.
I decide what is moral, therefore I am moral.

He cannot be immoral or amoral under his own system, so his claim to be moral cannot be falsified - under his own system. It is tautological, having defined himself as moral, regardless of his behaviors. But if judged by a different, absolute moral system, rather than his own sloppy self-referential definitional system, he would be beholden to something other than himself and his own variable moral principles. And that would not sit well with him because it would place constraints on him from which he is otherwise free. The whole point is this: No Constraints. It's how Atheists roll.

As for friendly humanism, re-read the three Humanist Manifestos, starting with the First Manifesto and comparing the latter manifestos with the first. Humanism was, and is, totalitarian, because humanists are the moral authorities who desire to place their moral principles (non-principles? hardly) on the rest of society, and all its institutions. Dawkins is a humanist; PZ is a humanist; Silverman is a humanist. Look carefully at every Atheist who wants to eradicate all religion and all absolutes and to Atheize government, schools, and all of society, and you will find a humanist behind the hate. And analyze for yourself whether humans, especially Atheists, are hardwired to be empathetic. Try to find the empathy which the American Atheists, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or the New Atheists, and especially the Humanist/Free Thinkers display, say during their "Reason Rallies" or conferences where women are afraid to attend.

The claims of these two authors are glaringly, painfully absurd.

Note: Excerpted from “Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart” by Lex Bayer and John Figdor. Copyright © Rowman & Littlefield.

Found at reddit, a Q&A with Bayer and Figdor who both respond to this question:
When and how did you both become atheists?

Lex_Bayer [responds]
Hi. I started questioning my religion and God in high school. I went to a Jewish Day School in South Africa. In the book I relate the moment when I realized that I should start thinking more for myself. It was after performing the Jewish ritual of Kapparot. In college I took the time and energy to think about these things more deeply and from that point forward was comfortable letting people know that I am an atheist.

John_Figdor [responds]
I became an atheist, somewhat ironically, during confirmation class as I was becoming a member of the UCC church where I grew up. Reading the Bible cover to cover, and discussing it with other broadly secularly-minded Christians helped me understand that I didn’t get my beliefs and values from a 2,000 year old book.
It is very common for adolescents to reject everything which represents authority, especially authority to limit their behaviors. A very high percentage of Atheists from Bertrand Russell to Dawkins, etc. gained "freedom" in their pubescent periods, well before the maturation of their frontal cortex which does not occur in some until the age of 28. So that, plus their logic attempts to justify that, explains their rejection. And that is far more explanatory than their faulty logic.