Humanism is Benign… Right?

Well, read what the manifestos actually say:

Humanist Manifesto I, 1933:

Statements of socialism and totalitarian control of society:

(…)

”ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

(…)

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

Humanist Manifesto II: The socialism of Manifesto I is now concealed in more dense hyperbole for the following reasons:

Preface
”It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.”

Well, the ideas of "siezing control of all institutions" and "social and mental hygiene" didn’t work out so well when the real world actually did it in the 1930's and 40's, so the Manifesto needed a little cosmetic work; hence Manifesto II.

Read the Manifestos if you haven’t already, all three of them. Read between the lines in the latter ones, for the abstruse and veiled references which were blatant in Manifesto I. For example, in Manifesto II:

”TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

Yes, economic well-being for all individuals and groups; the common good: democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

The absurdness of a democratized economy should be apparent: the voting majority decides on what products everyone gets? In a free economy every real demand gets serviced. Which is better? More to the point, what does this TENTH article actually mean? One suspects that the democracy part actually refers to socialization and government ownership: the Peoples Economy. The references to seizure made clear in Manifesto I are now stealth references.

Then there is this in the ELEVENTH:

”We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts - the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts - for all who are neglected or ignored by society.”

As if no one else cares about these people and only the elites care. Here’s the truth, at least in my community. The elites don’t care one whit about those categories of people. It is the religious community that runs programs and cares for them, performing outside the extremely limited governmental programs. These are ministries taken on by individuals who care, and they are not Atheo-Humanists. In fact, try to find an Atheo-Humanist organization actually on the ground at any disaster. [note 1]

And this one, the TWELFTH;

”TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity.”

This is one of the reasons for the next Manifesto, number III. Cultural pluralism is a fused disaster awaiting a spark. Witness the Islamic movement hoping to take over Europe and Britain merely by population size. Pluralism and diversity are not on the Islamic agenda.

FIFTEENTH:

(…)

It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide - through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

SEVENTEENTH:

(…)

The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

The Humanist Manifesto III is a wimpy shadow of the former Humanist positions, having replaced the dictates with “beliefs” and statements of morals according to Humanists. Here is the key phrasing:

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Yes, working not for oneself, for one’s own welfare, for one’s own family, but working for society. In return one gets his inequities reduced and a lot of stuff redistributed in his direction, unless he has too much stuff, then it is adios stuff. If this is not communism, then what is it?

Now let’s back up to this:

” Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”

Life’s fulfillment is for YOU GUYS to do all this stuff, while we reduce your inequities and redistribute your stuff. Read this paragraph again, and then kindly explain to me how this teleological revelation was received by the elites who are letting us in on their wisdom. We should service the humane ideals of “inequitiy reduction” and stuff “redistribution”, and then we will be fulfilled?

There is no categorical distance between the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III. The only difference is that the original sharpness of focus has fogged somewhat, by excess verbiage in Manifesto II, and by over-simplicity and the use of joyous terms of liberationism objectives in Manifesto III.

The “Notable Signers” of Manifesto III include one (1) actual producer, a pharacologist; the remainder are academics, activists, writers, entertainers, and Unitarians. Except for that one (1) producer, not one produces a single product for satisfying the issue of ”whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life.”

Humanism is the self-righteous elitist religion, to be applied to the common man: the herd. It originally even called itself the Humanist religion, and it has been declared a religion in the U.S. Federal Courts. It is the religion of self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving prototyrants.

[note 1]: One Atheist organization has recently tried to deliver stuff to disaster victims expressly because of this criticism - not because they actually care.

Humanism

At first glance, one might think, “I’m a human, Humanism must be about me”. Sorry, no. To be sure, humans are the subjects of Humanism; and “subject” is the correct term.

Positivist Humanism
The first self-described humanist was Auguste Comte. Comte developed a philosophy the evolved into a “secular religion” called Positivism or Positivist Humanism. From 1851 through 1854 Comte wrote “religion of Humanity, called “Systeme De Politique Positive”. Under Comte’s philosophy, science and “rational” thought would dominate the superstitions and bring proper progress to the world. He developed his religion of Positivist Humanism into a replacement for the Catholic Church, creating a priesthood of brilliant metascientists and replacements for religious rituals.

Under Positivist Humanism, the welfare of all humans is the supreme objective. This objective would be defined by the priesthood of metascientists who would comprehend not only science, but all the affairs of mankind. The priesthood would be a carefully developed class of near superhuman intellects, a priesthood of intellectual elites.

Once the elite priesthood had codified the needed behaviors of the rest of humanity, every human would be expected to fully subordinate his own wishes in order to fulfill the welfare of humanity in general. Failure to cooperate would not be tolerated; re-education and coercion would be applied where necessary.

Perhaps this sounds familiar to you. Humanism is found at the core of the “secular experiments” that drove the 20th century to become the bloodiest century ever. But Humanism was not intimidated.

The Manifestos
In 1933 the first Humanist Manifesto was created. Written and signed by education philosopher, John Dewey, and a group of Unitarian ministers, the manifesto defined Humanism as a religion, and gave 15 points of belief. Among these were the position that God and religion and dualism were outdated and needed to be realigned to the scientific method. The thirteenth point is instructive:

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

Can there be any doubt about the intent of Humanists to wrest control of all institutions which disagreed with them? If that is not convincing, here is the fourteenth point:

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

This is clearly defining Humanism as a totalitarian state, seizing an inadequate society and socializing it and cooperatizing it. And if people are smart, they will voluntarily cooperate, not for their own good, but for the common good. The Humanist demand is last: shared life in a shared world.

Humanist Manifesto II
In 1973 a second manifesto was created in order to distance the Humanists from both the original declaration that Humanism was a religion, albeit secular, and also from the humanism that was specifically Nazi. Unspoken was the removal of the seizure statements in the original Manifesto, and the term socialization was no where to be found. Most of the second manifesto was positionless rhetoric, except for the declarations against deity and religion in general. The idea that morality is non-absolute, and situational did place this Manifesto into direct opposition to all of Western government and cultural establishment. This Manifesto was not clear, and required a new writing.

Humanist Manifesto III
In 2003, the next Manifesto was released. The most glaring feature is the idea that nature is “self-existing”, this apparently meaning that the Big Bang created itself. Whatever the science behind it, the statement is clearly supporting the replacement of deity with nature.

The socialism concept is embedded in moral statements:

“We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”

The seizure and control of social, economic and political institutions is not addressed, either to affirm it or to deny it. Apparently the meaning of Humanism has gone under the surface.

Humanist Frederick Edwards, in his description of Humanism offers this typically veiled proposition:

"Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives."

In light of previous Humanist declarations, one must imagine just what “new alternatives” might be thought acceptable to a group of elite, whose situational ethic allows them to change their “manifestos” to suit their whims. The global consciousness of Christian aid across the world apparently is not the type of global consciousness that the Humanists are “committed to”.

But these veiled and contradictory generalities can mutate at any moment, and undoubtedly will, probably by 2033, for the next obscure rendition of the Humanist Manifesto.

Humanism: Origins

The following is the original 1933 Manifesto in its entirety as presented on the humanist website, as of 2006. My comments follow.

Humanist Manifesto I
The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.
— Raymond B. Bragg (1933)


The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: There were 34 signers of this document, including Anton J. Carlson, John Dewey, John H. Dietrich, R. Lester Mondale, Charles Francis Potter, Curtis W. Reese, and Edwin H. Wilson.]
Copyright © 1973 by the American Humanist Association


Permission to reproduce this material in toto in electronic or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the copyright holder. Free permission to reprint the essay is granted to nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications. All others must secure advance permission of the author through the American Humanist Association, which can be contacted at the address at the end of this file.

The first ten items and particularly the first six out of the list of fifteen describe Atheism. Humanism called itself "religious humanism" and its intent according to the manifesto was to replace all religion with Atheism.

The eleventh item contains the buzz words for eugenics, "the path of social and mental hygiene".

Moreover, humanism intended to take over religious institutions in order to "reconstitute" them (item 13); it intended to take over the economic institutions and redistribute "means of life" [wealth] while implementing "A socialized and cooperative economic order" [socialism and communism].

In 1973 the manifesto admittedly was rewritten in light of the massively onerous humanist experiments that the world had suffered through in the first half of the 20th century. The offending elements in the first manifesto were submerged in a more vague text in the second. This was repeated in 2003 for the third manifesto, more vague yet.

One commenter noted that the 1973 Humanist Manifesto doesn't use the word "atheism", and is therefore not atheistic. I would point to this statement in that manifesto:

"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival."

Humanism is also Materialistic: theism is unproved requiring material proof of a non-material deity; and "heaven hereafter" is denied, presumably due to lack of material proof in the here and now. So it is a denial of any reality beyond what they can see, feel, weigh and measure. In fact, it includes monism, the unproved concept that the mind is firmly attached to the brain, and is not a separate entity that uses the brains neurons as scaffolding.

Primacy of Self (Secularism)

[Author's note: this was first published as part of an ebook which is available in full at atheism-analyzed.net]

Secularism and Illusion of Tolerance
For decades after the 1960’s, Americans have been taught that tolerance is more important than absolutism. In fact, absolutism is anti-tolerant and therefore cannot be tolerated. In her book, “Total Truth”, Nancy Pearcy traces the roots of dualism, the trend of placing transcendent truths in a separate space, isolated from materialism. She describes a two story house, where the secular space is on the ground floor with access to the outside world, and the transcendent, religious space is consigned to the upstairs, accessible only to the occupants of the house. The trend is traceable from Plato on, but only becomes a significant socio-political issue in the past century or so. It has become “intolerant” to express one’s religious views outside the door, in view of the secular world.

Americans are understandably proud of the religious tolerance that the US Constitution guarantees. So they were off guard when the meaning of tolerance changed imperceptibly, and then continued to change. Tolerance has expanded its meaning under the Atheist attack of “reform” groups such as the American Civil Liberty Union, and the Americans for Separation of Church and State, not to mention the various abortion sale groups, and now embryonic stem cell profiteers. Tolerance now means that it is a “hate” crime to question the validity of many Atheist activities. And yet tolerance of the original values establishing tolerance in the first place has disappeared from the nation’s lexicon, especially that of the media.

Secularism is equated with tolerance, and seems right and sensible to the casual thinker. Most Atheists probably have unexamined belief systems; after all, one needs only deny God, and thus declare for Atheism. So “unexamined” is the key word, except for the most virulent, radical Atheist attackers of the social system.

The first part of this work [prior chapters of the ebook] shows the folly of declaring that Atheism is rational. But it turns out that “rationality” is only a knee-jerk defense for many Atheists. They declare themselves “rational”, and depend on the word itself to provide safety from having to think it through. In the last part of this work we shall see that the opposite is true: Atheism is the pursuit of the irrational. And only the bravest of the Atheists will admit to their bottom line belief, a necessary belief as will be shown, that unexamined rationalism is just a cover for irrational belief systems.

Secularism, and thus untrammeled tolerance, then is the camouflage position for the true Atheist. Atheists will retreat to this position when they are challenged on either the Rational Position, or the Irrational Position.

So if rational thought is not the real reason for being a true Atheist, what are the reasons? In his book “Faith of the Fatherless”, Paul C. Vitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at NYU and Senior Scholar at The institute for the Psychological Sciences in Washington D.C., looks for common features in the lives of the great Atheists of the 19th and 20th centuries. His overwhelming conclusion is that defective fathers in the lives of young men lead to traumas that cause rebellions against father figures that culminate in the rejection of the ultimate father figure, God. These young men received no positive masculine input in their formative years, and were raised by women, leading them to search for their own masculine identity blindly and without guidance. Blind rebellion and search for their own strength can lead to rejection of all authority, including that of God.

This feature of Atheist philosophers is nearly 100% correlatable, as Vitz shows. He contrasts the fatherly and masculine inputs to major theists of the same period as a control group, showing that positive masculine input during a boy’s formative years produces a positive result.

Is the defective father the only reason to become an Atheist? Not in the least. Vitz outlines other reasons, many of which I can personally attest to.

Normal rebellion in teenagers, especially males, is due to the overwhelming conflict between the need to obey certain parental and social rules, and the need to assert one’s own emerging intellect and personal power. If one submits totally to outside rules, how is personal cowardice to be ignored? If one rebels, is it not a sign of courage, bravery and becoming? And if the rebelling mind goes off to college, what awaits it there?

Intellectualism
Part of the intrinsic psychological attraction of Atheism is the promise of becoming one of the “elite”. The intellectuals, as they think of themselves, reside in positions of prominence and power, primarily in the isolation of the university setting. It is there that young people first encounter the glory of intellectualism, and the primacy of the self. While the actual number of Atheists is very small, their influence is far beyond.

The 2001 ARIS Poll of the general population shows Atheists at 0.4%, Agnostics at 0.3%, Secularists at 0.02%, and Humanists at 0.02%. It also showed “No religion” at 13.2%. A Harris Interactive Poll in 2003 showed 9% Atheist, and 12% Agnostic. And a 2005 Gallup / Baylor Poll reported in USA Today showed 8.2% Atheist / Agnostics. So depending on how the question is presented, there might be just 0.7%, or there might be 21%, Atheist / Agnostics in the USA.

Whichever is the case, Atheism is a small percentage of the American population as a whole. However, polls taken of university professors show a different story. Fully 31% of professors claim to be Atheist / Agnostic, and another 33% have doubts about the existence of God. (64%). The percentage of biology and psychology professors who are Atheist is even higher at 61%. (www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/gross/religions.pdf)

And the ratio of “secularists” in the media is also well above the nation as a whole.

Because of this imbalance, the systems of education and information dissemination are controlled by secularism.

The “Self” in the Media: “I’m Worth It”.
The culture today is dominated by video and televised visual effects. The advertising world has acclimated to these technologies, and has used them to create an atmosphere of “want”. Unnecessary products must produce a want that will result in sales. The culture of Want is personified by the slogan, “I’m worth it”. New wants must be generated when the old wants start to flag. Dissatisfaction with the previous acquisition must be created. Advertising is not just all pervasive, it is an all out war to create Want. The war glorifies the “self” in every way. Clothing ads promise coolness and sex. As do car ads, shampoo ads, etc. Drug ads promise cures and happiness for yourself, notwithstanding your doctor’s input. The “self” is pumped and prodded in every conceivable way.

The “Self” in the Profession: Elitism.
Aside from the excessive acquisition of modern individuals, the value of the individual is determined by values that revolve around personal excellence. An individual is supposedly paid for “performance”. A person higher in the political structure has more value than those on the low rungs. Personal value is generated by striving. And striving for the pinnacle of intellectualism generates the most personal value of all. So it is understandable that those individuals who have wrung the most from the institutions of education demand the most respect. Such individuals might be prone to aloofness and condescension when confronted with lesser individuals. Nonetheless, they are the icons of the elite self in our culture.

The “Self” in Secular Culture: Narcissism.
Personal value is also found in appearances. Both men and women flock to cosmetic surgeons. Fad diet books flood bookstores. The image of youth and prosperity still drive the economy, as cars and houses become more statements of personal value than transportation and abodes. The drive for thinness has spawned eating disorder epidemics. The “Me generation” has reproduced itself.

Secular Paganism.
Worship might be defined as “commitment to pursuit of that which gives meaning to life”. Or, “Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.” What might these objects of esteem be? Current cultural pressures present many objects for us to “esteem”. And they are rapidly replaced with more, newer objects.

But there are other things that give meaning to the secularist, including personal rights such as the right to do anything whatsoever without judgment or repercussions of any type. These new “rights” are considered inviolable and part of a “living Constitution” which is to be interpreted by the Secular Pagans themselves. And it is therefore very clear to the Secular Pagan that any attempt to curtail or even speak against such “rights” constitutes a “hate crime”, which deserves more punishment than an ordinary crime.

Secular Pagans are as devoted to their religion as any other religious people, perhaps more. The Secular Pagans are investing vast sums to try to produce a Pagan Nation, devoid of any absolute values, and restrictive laws.

The Secular Pagans are Atheists by default only. Their pursuits and beliefs are outside the world of religion. They are the true narcissists, pursuing what pleases themselves.

Secularism as a Movement

Definitions of Secularism:
1. Without religion; without spirituality
2. Freedom of / from religion
3. Believe only based on evidence, not “superstitions”

The vogue definition for “secular” is that which is separate from religion. However, Secularism as a movement is not quite so bland. The term “Secularism” was first used by George Jacob Holyoake, in England around 1846. He first described it as an “opinion”, then as an action:

"Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of Secularism, 17).

"Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:
1. The improvement of this life by material means.
2. That science is the available Providence of man.
3. That it is good to do good. "Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good" (English Secularism, 35).

Such a code of duty was, to say the least, imprecise, providing no evidence for accepting these as essential principles, and no evidence for determining that which might be thought to be “good”. Such loopholes notwithstanding, the Secularist movement has continued, and expanded into the realm of “humanism” (next chapter). The essential principles are founded on “considerations purely human”, and elevate the human to a level beyond theology (being inadequate). The Primacy of Self is clearly established.

In 1858, Charles Bradlaugh succeeded Holyoake as president of the National Secular Society in England. Bradlaugh was a voice against the Roman Catholic Church calling it a danger to “freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of action”. As with Voltaire, the egregious abuses in the ecclesiastical system were easy targets. However, Voltaire remained a theist; the secularists were self-supremacists.

Secular Humanism.
Humanist manifesto #1.
Declared officially as a religion, the original manifesto designated the capacity for human reasonability to be the guide for ethics, and rejected absolutist religious tenets. Thus the self is declared supreme as a religious tenet.

Secular Humanists in history: Hitler; Stalin; Mao; Pol Pot; Sadam Hussein. The grief produced by these tyrants - Hitler and Stalin - caused a rethinking of the manifesto, resulting in the Humanist Manifesto #2.

Humanist Manifesto #2.The second manifesto eliminated the reference to being a religion. It also removed the statist, fascist statements that had permeated the first Manifesto, and replaced them with more obscure statements. This was an admitted response to the disastrous humanist experiments of Russia and Germany in the first half of the 20th century. This was a transparent attempt at obscurantism.

Humanist Manifesto #3.
This statement of the Humanist position is even more general and obscure than the second Manifesto. However, the general underlying principles are not obviated by the lack of precision in stating them.

Delingpole's Manifesto

A Lasting and Accurate Analog: The Dogshit Yogurt Fallacy.

Rules for Righties — a War-Winning Manifesto for 2017

Samples of the Manifesto:

"No wonder so many of us had become so fed up with politics: no matter which party you voted for, whether the notionally left-wing one or the notionally right-wing one you still seemed to end up up with the same old vested interests, the same old liberal Establishment elite.

Of course we should always despise the liberal-left because their philosophy is morally bankrupt, dangerous and wrong. But I sometimes think that the people we should despise most of all are the squishes who pretend to be on our side of the argument but forever betray our cause. Sometimes they do this by throwing the more outspoken among us to the wolves in order to signal how tolerant and virtuous they are; sometimes they do this by endorsing some fatuous liberal position in order to show their willingness to compromise.

I call the latter approach the “dogshit yogurt fallacy.”

If conservatives like fruit or honey in their yogurt and liberals prefer to eat it with dogshit, it is NOT a sensible accommodation – much as our centrist conservative columnists might wish it so – to say: “All right. How about we eat our yogurt with a little bit of both?” We need to understand, very clearly, that there are such things as right and wrong; and that, furthermore, it is always worth fighting to the bitter end for the right thing rather than accepting second best because a bunch of lawyers and politicians and hairdressers from Brazil and squishy newspaper columnists and other members of the liberal elite have told us that second best is the best we can hope for."

And this:

"We will never apologise, never explain, never surrender

See those scalped corpses, littering the plains? These are the guys – and it is, invariably, men – who thought that if only they showed contrition for their confected crimes the enemy would leave them alone. Sir Tim Hunt apologised, the guy from Saatchi apologised, the guy on the Rosetta space programme who wore the “sexist” shirt apologised. A fat lot of good it did them. The vengeful liberal-left doesn’t just want humiliation – it wants total annihilation.

Giving even an inch of ground to an enemy so implacable and vile is not only futile – but it also badly lets the side down by granting them a power that they do not deserve. The most recent sorry example of this was Steve Martin who actually deleted a tweet praising his late friend Carrie Fisher as a “beautiful creature” because a bunch of feminazis on Twitter complained that this was sexist objectification.

Look, I know it’s a scary thing when the SJW witch-hunt mob turns on you. But read Vox Day’s SJW Attack Survival Guide, follow the example of Nigel Farage and fight these people to the very last bullet (keeping the final round for yourself). Do not surrender! (And if you need reminding why not, read this piece I wrote the other day, of which I am very proud)"

Much More at the Site.

Atheist Revolution and the "Atheist Manifesto"

This review of “The Atheist Manifesto” by Joseph Lewis is presented by blogger Atheist Revolution [otherwise nameless] who thinks that the quotes he has chosen are inspiring:

Atheist Revolution:

”Remember, this was written in 1954 long before anybody was talking about "new atheism." And yet, Lewis was not afraid to call the abolition of religion. I cannot remember the last time I actually caught myself exclaiming "hell yeah" while reading a book, but Lewis' manifesto did indeed have that effect.

”I'll end with my favorite sentence in the book, one with which I wholeheartedly agree” (see the last quote from Lewis, below).

Joseph Lewis:

”Do you know that the religionists opposed the use of anesthesia on the ground that God sent pain as a punishment for sin, and it was considered the greatest of sacrileges to use it—just think of it, a sin to relieve man of his misery! What a monstrous perversion!”

A charge made against “religionists” as if it were a belief of all religions. A charge without specificity, made as a blanket condemnation.

Lewis:

”It is because of the Biblical curse on man's search for knowledge, which has so paralyzed his mind during the past ages, and its detrimental effect upon progress, that makes the Bible the most wicked, the most detestable, the most pernicious, and the most obnoxious book ever published. It has been a curse to the human race.”

The Bible enjoins Christians to seek only the Truth, and to question all premises that are made, in order not to be fooled by human lies and “philosophy” over the facts of what happened. (If philosophy were “fact”, it would be science, not philosophy).

Lewis:

”As long as man loves a phantom in the sky more than he loves his fellow man, there will never be peace upon this earth; so long as man worships a Tyrant as the "Fatherhood of God," there will never be a "Brotherhood of Man."”

Exactly so, except that the qualifier is not necessary. It should read, “There will never be a ‘Brotherhood of Man’”. Brotherhood of Man is capitalized properly because it is a godless religion, based on irrational and unprovable tenets as well as distortions which are demonstrated in the hate rant presented here. The abolition of all religion in order to establish this universal godless religion is the objective. As Atheist Revolution says, “hell yeah”. Tolerance? None visible here.

SJW Manifesto Du Jour

Professor’s Manifesto: Vegans Must Illegally Overthrow Society to Save the World

He's not joking. But the Manifesto was actually from 2009. Apparently the environment is becoming more conducive to such Marxist blather.

Liberty or Socialism, part 2.

Mark Levin's new book, "Liberty and Tyranny" remains #1 in sales at Amazon.com. Levin outlines the actual properties of the threats to Liberty that are present and persistent in the U.S. government, and he culminates his work with a manifesto for lovers of liberty. I won't repeat that manifesto here, because I absolutely encourage the sale and distribution of his book. Read it and pass it on.

There are certain fundamentals that I think Levin didn't reach down to, not that this is a criticism, just an observation. There are fundamental character issues that have been systematically destroyed by the infiltration of Leftist, socialist, totalitarian thought over the past century, character attributes that were initially American traits, but which fit into liberty, not into egalitarianism and socialism.

The individualistic, self-reliant, drive for personal accomplishment and private ownership of home and estate has been replaced by a constant droning about victimhood… a consistent stripping of personal responsibility and placing it on evil victimizers: big business; corporate greed; Wall Street; white euro-males; straights; Christians; Israel. The Leftist in charge of “homeland security”(1), Janet Napolitano, has now published a document listing possible enemies of the state: returning veterans; Right to Lifers; constitutionalists who support the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These are juxtaposed with Timothy McVeigh to support the charges by false comparison. The obvious intent is to demonize those who are not in lock-step with the present Leftist power mongers and elitists.

Victimhood and entitlement have replaced individualism and reward for accomplishment with cultural parasitism. Entire minorities have been systematically destroyed by their own bleating, parasitic leadership. Now these minorities have reached majority, and the escalation of personal character degradation is exponential.

The control of the economy is the piece d’resistance of power grabs. And what better chance to encourage parasitism than to dole out hundreds of billions of tax dollars with no accompanying responsibilities, indeed with total secrecy as to the recipient, much less the use to which the recipient makes of the free cash? What better reward for failure and victimhood?

The entire governmental culture has drifted into one of omni-beneficence as a disguise for tentacles into every aspect of personal life, from control of public maleducation, to control of water use, control of food sources, control of all economic and financial systems including poverty of the elderly, and the coming rationing of medical care for all Americans.

The Left hopes that the educational disconnect that leaves the populace ignorant of the actual American roots in freedom and liberty will lead to popular support for a permanent parasitism, and Leftist governmental control of pretty much everything. There are so many power grabs being introduced in Congress that one despairs of keeping up with them: silencing talk radio; silencing the internet; grabbing guns; government financing for Leftist newspapers; government financing of abortion; government financing of Leftist activists such as ACORN, and its hundreds of sub-organizations; government control of the boards of manufacturers.

If there is an antidote to this, it seems that it must come from outside the existing political embedded structures, meaning outside the failed Republican party, which is continuing its Leftward movement, even in its weakened, and useless current position. If the tea party movements continue to grow, perhaps they will produce a constitution based, liberty-based, anti-parasite-based, personal integrity-based political force to replace the current governing elite class.

The official declaration of allegiance of both the governing class and the governed has always been to the U.S. Constitution, not to the government. In fact the Pledge of Allegiance itself ignores that in favor pledging allegiance to the FLAG, not the constitution. This is a surreptitious pledge to the government, not to the constitution, and serves as a dodge.

When Supreme Court Justices defend the use of foreign law in making proclamations that amount to new laws, when the president believes that the constitution is just a suggestion to be altered as he sees fit, when congress repeatedly violates the constitutional restriction of the 9th and 10th amendments and declares the supporters of those amendments to be enemies of the state, the situation is actually pretty desperate. To reverse or rectify this governmental abuse by the Left will require unusual, abnormal force to be exerted from the position of Liberty over Egalitarianism. Originally it required the pledge of one’s life and fortune to the cause of liberty – a position almost unthinkable in today’s parasitic, entitled, victimhood mental state.

Below is a substitute pledge that has been suggested by Libertarian James Ostrowski. This pledge represents a dedication not to a flag, nor a government, not even to a specific document. It is a pledge to the concept behind the document, behind the revolution that produced the document and the republic that we are losing.

"I pledge allegiance to the principles of the American Revolution, stated by Jefferson, and for which the Minutemen and Washington's Army fought: that government's only purpose is to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property; that any government that does "more" than protect our natural rights must thereby violate those same rights and become a tyranny that the people have the right to alter or abolish. I pledge to resist that tyranny by peaceful means if at all possible."
James Ostrowski

(1) I quote this use of homeland security because the purpose of HSD has been subverted to mean preservation of the imperial government, not the security of the populace.

Charen Takes On Democrat Historical Revisionism

As Clinton tries to connect Republicans to racism, it is important to continue to illuminate the actual, very real history of the Democrat Party as the ground zero of slavery and racism.

Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History

"Here’s what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator:

We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes.

So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man who was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days.

Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let’s review (since they don’t teach this in schools): The percentage of House Democrats who supported the legislation? 61 percent. House Republicans? 80 percent. In the Senate, 69 percent of Democrats voted yes, compared with 82 percent of Republicans. (Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the NAACP, voted no because he thought it was unconstitutional.)

When he was running for president in 2000, former Vice President Al Gore told the NAACP that his father, Senator Al Gore, Sr., had lost his Senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act. Uplifting story — except it’s false. Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act. He lost in 1970 in a race that focused on prayer in public schools, the Vietnam War, and the Supreme Court.

Al Gore’s reframing of the relevant history is the story of the Democratic Party in microcosm. The party’s history is pockmarked with racism and terror. The Democrats were the party of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, and that miserable terrorist excrescence, the Ku Klux Klan. Republicans were the party of Lincoln, of Reconstruction, of anti-lynching laws, of the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964. Were all Republicans models of rectitude on racial matters? Hardly. Were they a heck of a lot better than the Democrats? Without question.

As recently as 2010, the Senate president pro tempore was former Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd (D., West Virginia). Rather than acknowledge their sorry history, modern Democrats have rewritten it.

You may recall that when MSNBC was commemorating the 50th anniversary of segregationist George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” stunt to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama, the network identified Wallace as “R., Alabama.”

The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all of the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican Party were suburban, prosperous, “New South” types. The more Republican the South has become, the less racist.

Is it unforgivable that Bill Clinton praised a former segregationist? No. Fulbright renounced his racist past, as did Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. It would be immoral and unjust to misrepresent the history.

What is unforgivable is the way Democrats are still using race to foment hatred. Remember what happened to Trent Lott when he uttered a few dumb words about former segregationist Strom Thurmond? He didn’t get the kind of pass Bill Clinton did when praising Fulbright. Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton told a mostly black audience that “What is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to another . . . Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting.” She was presumably referring to voter ID laws, which, by the way, 51 percent of black Americans support.

Racism has an ugly past in the Democratic Party. The accusation of racism has an ugly present."
[Emphasis added, because I couldn't help it]

I read somewhere that the Ku Klux Klan has been the Terrorist arm of the Democrat Party from the very beginning of the party. That tactic became less necessary under Lyndon Johnson when the Democrats decided to use blacks rather than abuse blacks. The Democrats have cynically used blacks ever since then by employing lies like the Clinton lie, above. There are now nearly three generations of blacks who have been lied to by Democrats, and kept on the Democrat welfare plantation. White and black Democrat "leaders" have consistently used fear of whites to keep blacks in line and voting for their historic masters. These days, most "racial incidents" are phony creations of the Left intended to create racism where it doesn't exist. Find a burnt cross on someone's lawn and it's ten to one that it was put there by a Leftist. But it's "true" if it furthers the narrative, don't you know. There are no lies in a culture that knows no truth.

Be kind and give Charen a hit at this LINK.

Humanism: Everything For Everybody

Roy Speckhardt promotes his humanism at HuffPo:

”While religious movements generally depend on convincing their adherents that they are part of a divinely chosen in-group and all others are not, humanism is founded on the consensus that we are all human and that the notion of an out-group in and of itself is an obstacle to our advancement. Though religious people may strive to better the lives of all, their efforts are often limited by the existence of an unavoidable hurdle: all who don't follow their faith are part of the out-group. So no matter how much one faith may wish lower the wall that separates them from another, there will always be a tripping stone between them -- it is exactly this block that a humanistic approach helps us step over.

Overcoming barriers put in place by religion, ideology, geography, and the like, is frequently attainable. In fact, it is the sort of feat often repeated in history. In hunter-gatherer times, humans extended the circle of empathy to their family unit alone. Over generations, this circle has grown, from family, to tribe, to nation-state, and even further. The events in Norway are a reminder of the desperate need for humanity to continue evolving our ability to empathize until we view our world as inhabited by one people.”

Which Manifesto will this coming Humanist conference choose? Maybe a new one, one that will explain how human nature will magically be morphed into a compliant, altruistic one which voluntarily gives up considering its own needs and issues first? Because if they have a plan for that, I certainly am interested in hearing it.

The most recent manifestos, however, merely bleat on about how it would be so nice if folks would just co-operate and be more, you know, empathetic. If folks would just behave differently from how they have always behaved and start to behave how they have never behaved, wouldn’t the world be… humanist? As my friend says, if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts.

Humanism is based on the idea of the perfectibility of humans, where perfect is defined by, who else, the humanists. The understory is that humans can be without sin, and if all humans would just do that, then the earth would be inhabited by a race of gods. The humanists are the prophets and priests, of course. The belief in the perfectibility of humans is without any evidence to support it, and with thousands of years and billions of humans which disprove it; it is a belief held blindly, a fatuous religion with magical miracles and the longing for deity status.

The more well defined Humanisms do not eliminate “in groups” contrary to Speckhardt’s claim. Under Comte, humanism was to be run by brilliant scientist-philosophers as the combination priesthood and governing body over the masses. Under Nietzsche, the “herd” was to be formed into a single class under the ruling of those with the “will to power”. Under the “New Man” humanisms, from Lenin to Che, well, we know what happened there. The First “Humanist Manifesto” is explicit: institutions will be seized and morally reformed for equalization; the later manifestos become foggy quickly on the details, the plan. Humanism is attractive only to those who are history impaired.

To those who complain that “this new humanism is different from those others”, one need only to ask, “how are you going to cause this miraculous change in human nature to occur universally? What is your plan? Will it include Hell’s Angels and Chinese communists and Muslims (both Sunni and Shiite will become transformed into altruism for not only each other but for the Jews)? What about skinheads and politicians? Why do I doubt your ability to recruit Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists and Hindus? Why should I feel empathy for pedophiles? Your plan please!”

Perhaps the humanists will claim that we humans will evolve. To that we’ll ask, since when has evolution been declared directional, teleological, marching toward perfection with your preferred outcome in its sights? Why would humans as a group select to submerge their own needs in favor of others – biologically? What actual evidence (not Just So evo-devo stories like the fantasies in Speckhardt's statement above) can you present in your favor? It would truly take a miracle to get humans to randomly evolve away from their own self-interest. Or would this evolution be forced?

At best humanism is magical wishful thinking. At its worst, and we have seen it at its worst, it is deadly. Either humanists have entranced themselves with visions of their own perceived goodness, or they have not and are cynically involved for the inevitable takeover from within. Either way humanism is neither beneficial nor even benign. It is a social malignancy waiting to metastasize.

The Declaration of Liberty

I encourage everyone who values liberty over equality of outcome to consider the new Declaration of Liberty, written by Michael P. Farris, J.D. and found at this location.

This declaration is based on the same absolute principles of unalienable rights as those in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Bill of Rights. For this reason it will likely be found objectionable by Atheists, including Atheist libertarians. But it clearly differentiates between liberty and amoral anarchy of libertinism without absolutes.

The idea that amoral anarchy is really liberty is defeated by the realization that no anarchy is ever stable, but is ripe for exploitation by the power hungry, and not coincidentally, amoral.

This declaration follows on the heels of another declaration, that of Mark Levin in "Liberty and Tyranny, A conservative Manifesto", in which he enumerates a ten point manifesto.

There is little doubt that libertarians and Obamatarians will collide with serious consequences in the not too distant future; coexistence is not possible under the "my way only" policy of the One. Obama and the secular relativists will not relent, and the only option short of an election miracle in '10, will be drastic.

These two documents might just be the embryonic form of an awakening grassroots force for liberty, in the face of top-down egalitarianism.

Valerie Solanas, Feminist of the '60's

Are all feminists psychopaths? Or just those who get analyzed? Here is a feminist that I hadn't heard of before, despite her notoriety due to shooting Andy Warhol and two others in 1968. (She's a lousy shot). She wrote a feminist manifesto as does every feminist, this one entitled SCUM. The title has two meanings, the obvious reference to all men, and the real meaning which was "Society for Cutting Up Men". Which she meant literally, not metaphorically.

Solanas actually formed a S.C.U.M. society which met for a while. That apparently had a hiatus while Solanas was in lock-up for her triple shooting. She was psychoanalyzed as paranoid schizophrenic. According to Wikipedia,

"Solanas begins by presenting a theory of the male as an "incomplete female" who is genetically deficient due to the Y chromosome.[34] According to Solanas, this genetic deficiency causes the male to be emotionally limited, egocentric, and incapable of mental passion or genuine interaction. She describes the male as lacking empathy and unable to relate to anything apart from his own physical sensations.[35] The manifesto continues by arguing that the male spends his life attempting to become female, and thereby overcome his inferiority. He does this by "constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live though and fuse with the female." Solanas rejects Freud's theory of penis envy, and argues that men have "pussy envy". Solanas then accuses men of turning the world into a "shitpile" and presents a long list of grievances.[36]"

Men don't seem to be too concerned at being blanket psychoanalyzed by a certified paranoid schizophrenic, and have not taken to heart her threat to cut them all up. (She did effectively destroy Warhol's life, though)

Still, the same beat echos throughout much of today's feminism which is filled with hate for men and eliminationist rhetoric. It seems to be necessary for feminists due to the self-perception of personal weakness and hugely magnified fear of rape, yet with self-unaware self-aggrandizement and pompous moralizing by class. Feminists are at once pitiful Victims and valorous Messiahs.

Some men sidle up and attempt to become white knights to the pitiful Victims, but wind up being despised by both the Victim/Messiahs and the Oppressor/men.

It has been observed that feminism is an affectation which can exist only in a prosperous society, sated sufficiently to be tolerant of, well, too much. When the going gets rough, feminism and its whines will not be heard because they are trivial in reality. The irony is that when feminism gets its tendrils into government and academia, it brings on the rough going which will properly trivialize it. It is self-destructive. But only after leaving a wake of destruction behind. Academic institutions are about to find that out.

A Humanist Manifesto for the Honest Intellect

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly obscure and obtuse, with obeisance to the times in which they were written;

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly less intellectually honest in presenting a necessary and moral program for the Benefit For All Mankind;

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly less pointed and direct in dealing with the place of the individual human within the Whole Of Mankind;

A Fourth Humanist Manifesto Composed For the Benefit Of All Mankind is herewith presented, in order to clarify previous obscurities:

1. There is no God, nor deity of any description.

2. The physical universe is the totality of existence.

3. The physical universe is hung on a scaffold of space and time, and every instant of time finds a new universe with every particle and every field having changed from the previous instant; therefore there is no absolute constant in the universe, specifically no absolute Truth [1].

Man is a derivative of the physical universe. It follows that man’s faculties are also physical derivatives. Clarity of thought requires rejecting the ephemeral mental constructs such as self, consciousness, conscience, personal agency, all of which are illusions or delusions.

4. Conscience, especially, is a fleeting mental process of “seeming”, the same type of false construct as self, intentionality, etc; Seeming is not the same as being, it is a construct which exists only for the current instant and it is an illusion, not a physical reality. Therefore the derivative of conscience – morality – is also an illusion, not a physical reality.

There are, then, no morals other than those described herein, which are derived from rational objectives for the Benefit of Mankind, those being derived by the higher intellects of humanity: we Humanists. The Benefit of All Mankind is too important to leave to lesser intellects which are hampered by conscience and moral constructs that describe and prescribe only personal behaviors and personal responsibilities, while ignoring prescriptions for Mankind As A Whole.

5. Any rationalized morality must be first associated with objectives for All Mankind; only then can the moral paradigm be retrofit with actions necessary to accomplish the objectives. Any and all actions that produce positive progress toward objectives for All Mankind are tautologically moral; there are no other morals. It is thus immoral to ignore any action that could produce positive progress toward objectives for All Mankind.

6. Humans are derived from an ancestor lower than the chimpanzee; Most mental functioning of humans remains hunter-gatherer in nature. Few humans have the intellectual capability to realize the truth of Humanism. For this reason, Humanists are bound by the duty to manage the affairs of humanity as a whole, for the benefit of Mankind As A Whole.

7. It follows that every human must focus only on humanity as a whole. No human should focus on self, because self is not only an illusion, self-focus is a deviant behavior that neglects Mankind As A Whole, and is therefore amoral, if not immoral. Therefore all human institutions that focus on self, conscience, etc. must be abandoned or ceded to Humanist control, and then replaced with institutions that focus on Humanity As A Whole, starting with focusing on certain special demographic segments, including Humanists and their supporters (typically legal groupings of designated victims), which must be given higher priority than the whole.

8. The above objectives, being favorable to Mankind As A Whole, must be accomplished by the pragmatics of using any techniques which are functionally successful; not using any technique that might produce success is not moral.

9. The implementation of these techniques will produce a New Man, one that is focused no longer on selfish wants, one that is focused only on All Of Mankind, at the personal cost of self-sacrifice, even to the point of starvation and death, as this is the highest calling possible for individual human units. The New Man will evolve from the best of the best of humans: the Humanists. The New Man will very likely evolve away from the remaining mass of humans, and replace humans as the superior species on the planet. Humans should be prepared for this eventuality and gradually habituated to their new subordinate role. The resulting population of humans will likely need adjusting for balance and size, including the control of subpopulations, according to the needs of Mankind as a Whole.

10. We Atheist Humanists agree that it is our responsibility as public intellectuals and morally enlightened, elite, intelligentsia to oversee the accomplishment of these objectives for the Benefit Of All Mankind. We shall work diligently to collapse the current institutions using whatever techniques are available, including working from within to weaken the ability of the institutions to perform their stated functions, and in the ensuing cultural and economic chaos of institutional collapse we shall prevail with the creation of proper institutions for the control of all social and economic factors for the direct BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND.

[1] For perfect clarity, this particular statement is, in fact, absolutely True, however.

Evo-Atheism

The Humanist Association of Canada had its convention last week honoring its Humanist of the Year. According to this article in the Star.com by Stuart Laidlaw, Canadian Atheists prefer to be called Humanists. There are 16.3% of the population in the Canadian Atheist category now. And they consider themselves "good, without God".

Their "goodness" is based on evolution, and it is their "strong belief", Laidlaw's article points out:

"But what ties them together is a strong belief in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and a reverence for those who dedicate their lives to it.

One such person is Brian Alters, director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University and a speaker at this weekend's convention.

"He's the hero of evolution education," [kathy] Meidell [executive director of the Humanist Association of Canada] says."

Evolution and Atheism are indeed closely tied together. The ethic that results from such a wedding has been shown in the past to have helped produce Modernist tyrannies of unequalled viciousness and bloodiness. The original humanist manifesto had to be modified to gloss over the statements of institutional and state seizure.

These humanists are happy to report that evolution means a common bond between all living things, which means that,

"Because we are all one big family, it doesn't do you any good to hurt anyone else. And you wouldn't want to."

Being a member of the family of Man doesn't seem to confer any protection from the other members of the family of Man, as the ongoing genocides attest. It is not easy to conclude that these particular humanists are in full contact with reality. However, so long as they believe what they say, they are harmless. If they decide to take Darwin at his word, then matters change.

At least it is interesting to see an admission that Atheism/Humanism is strongly based on Evolution, and Darwin is their saint.

Still More Atheist Commandments

Atheists keep coming up with alternatives to the Ten Commandments. None of them stick as actual Atheist moral principles, and this set shows why.

"Ten people collectively won the Rethink Prize, which was granted for their efforts in re-imagining the traditional Ten Commandments; they will share a collective $10,000 prize.

Below, see their new set of commandments:

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10.Leave the world a better place than you found it.

These were chosen among 2,800 total submissions. What do you think of them? You can read the original Ten Commandments here."

Bayer and Figdor organized this contest around their book, “Atheist Mind, Human Heart,” which itself contained such things which we discussed elsewhere, some time back. So let's see how the contest winners' commandments hold up to logical scrutiny.

"1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence."

Atheists reject all but material evidence; so there is no evidence possible which will change their minds, because their minds are set on a logical fallacy: Category Error.

"2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true."

This places truth squarely into the probabilistic zone, where Atheists can use Baye's Theorem to manipulate "truth" according to their biases. They know that there is no truth except that which they make up. So they make "making it up" into a commandment. The non-specificity of this statement allows anything to be calculated as "probably" true, and certain Atheists do this all the time.

"3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world."

This is not a commandment at all, unless it commands Atheists to be Scientistic Materialists (and that is not clear from the assertion being made). Atheists are Scientistic by ideology, and their Scientism is stuck in Newtonian space. The idea of reality being nothing but probability fields all the way down is not useful to them in their Materialism, especially the part about the necessity of external conscious intervention to collapse the equation and produce anything resembling the special case of Newton's physics. Besides, this is not a commandment at all.

"4. Every person has the right to control over their body."

Also not a commandment, this is a phony "right", which will be interpreted to include only those who are "allowed" to be persons. It is an Atheist pass-time to create new definitions of personhood, depending upon the situation. This does not apply, of course, to anyone declared not-a-person by Atheists.

"5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life."

Another non-commandment; it is an assertion with no definition of "good". Good is what every Atheist defines it to be, for his own purpose, at the moment called "now". This could apply to Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot, or Castro quite well.

"6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them."

A weak attempt at a commandment, which fails to instruct as to what sort of consequences are Good and which are Bad, or even consequences for whom. That's because there is no Good/Bad judgment possible under the Atheist Void of moral emptiness. As Nietzsche demonstrated, there can be no good or evil under Atheism. So this "commandment" is without meaning, except possibly as a "don't get caught by the law" caveat.

"8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations."

And how should we consider them? As impediments to happiness requiring abortion? As Oppressors of our Victimhood Classes to be suppressed and removed? This bogus "commandment" also is without meaning, and is manipulable in every conceivable dimension.

"9. There is no one right way to live."

Now we are getting somewhere, even though this is not a commandment. This one is an assertion that ANYTHING GOES.

"10.Leave the world a better place than you found it."

Would the world be a better place without certain categories of people in it? Is that what we have here? Being non-specific as to what a "better place" would entail, leaves this commandment just as open to subjective interpretation as is possible. For the totalitarian AtheoLeft, a better world would be one where they, the elites, dominate and control the lives of the perpetual Victimhood herd, which is constantly being equalized and admonished to tolerate the dictates of the elites.
(As always, see the Humanist Manifesto I).

Let's summarize. Only a few of the "commandments" are actually commandments at all; the rest are assertions of one type or another. Those which actually are commandments are so non-specific as to cover any interpretation which might be put on them, thus allowing any type of behavior whatsoever.

Commandment number 9, (not actually a commandment) says it all: ANYTHING GOES in Atheist-land.

However, since Atheist thinking and behavior is not subject to logical scrutiny, at least not by Atheists, they are still without any restrictions and for them, ANYTHING GOES is the winning Atheist principle of moral conduct..

Liberty or Socialism?

Mark Levin's new book "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" has gone number one on Amazon the first day of its release. While I have not yet received my copy, I have been able to read excerpts from bloggers who have received and read theirs, and posted book reviews. One such review is here, and an excerpt follows. One innovation that Levin makes deserves to be made a permanent part of the lexicon: the false label “liberal” that the Left has bestowed upon themselves is replaced with the more descriptive and accurate term, “statist”:

It is observed that the Statist is dissatisfied with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings, and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he believes he deserves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. He is incapable of honest self-assessment and rejects the honest assessment by others of himself, thereby evading responsibility for his own miserable condition, The Statist searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece.

For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized. Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the individual must be subordinated to the state. He must abandon his own ambitions for the ambitions of the state. He must become reliant on and fearful of the state. His first duty must be to the state -- not family, community, and faith, all of which have the potential of threatening the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state.

The Statist's Utopia can take many forms, and has throughout human history, including monarchism, feudalism, militarism, fascism, communism, national socialism, and economic socialism. They are all of the same species -- tyranny. The primary principle around which the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word -- equality.

Equality, as understood by the Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.

The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual's property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man's natural state and man's perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia. The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the only hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrenders himself to the all-powerful state. Only then can the impossible be made possible. ...

For the Statist, the international community and international organizations serve as useful sources for importing disaffection with the civil society. The Statist urges Americans to view themselves through the lenses of those who resent and even hate them. He needs Americans to become less confident, to doubt their institutions, and to accept the status assigned to them by outsiders -- as isolationists, invaders, occupiers, oppressors, and exploiters. The Statist wants Americans to see themselves as backward, foolishly holding to their quaint notions of individual liberty, private property, family, and faith, long diminished or jettisoned in other countries. They need to listen to the voices of condemnation from world capitals, and self-appointing global watchdogs hostile to America's superior standard of living. America is said to be out of step and regressive, justifying the surrendering of his sovereignty through treaties and other arrangements that benefit the greater "humanity." And it would not hurt if America admitted it's past transgressions, made reparations, and accepted its fate as just another aging nation -- one among many.

The Statist must also rely on legions of academics to serve as his missionaries. After a short period of training and observation, academics receive a sinecure -- a personal stake in the state via lifetime employment through a system of tenure. The classroom is to shape the beliefs and attitudes of successive generations of malcontents and incubate the quiet revolution against the civil society. Academics help identify the enemies of the state, whom their students learn to distrust or even detest through distortion and repetition -- corporations as polluters, the Founding Fathers as slave owners, the military as imperialists, etc.

This is a concise statement of the several positions that I have taken on the utopianism of the consequentialist, Atheist Left. I am anxious to receive my own copy in a few days and spend the night reading it.

I am currently engaged in some other books along the same vein, although they might not have the same impact. These include The Fatal Conceit: the Errors of Socialism, and The Road to Serfdom, both by F.A, Hayek; Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg; and the striking book, United in Hate, by Jamie Glazov.

There is also blog chatter about depression amongst the lovers of liberty. One comment stands out: the disaster has already occurred; our situation now is one of response to the disaster.

This is a time for action, not for depression. As another says, the cure for depression is action. The response will determine the future of our culture, whether socialist equal outcomes, or personal liberty to pursue one’s own path.

Another Candidate For Stupidest Article Ever

If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person
A manifesto.

Allison Benedikt

"You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better."

Yes. Sacrifice your child for the Common Good, as Leftists define it... or you are bad. Probably an Oppressor Class identity.

This article inspired an all new category: Stupidest Articles Ever.

Atheist Morality on Display...

...for all the world to see. Putin has turned away from his superficially civil behaviors (except for Russian election political brutality), behaviors with which he fooled those gullibles in the west who ridiculed Mitt Romney for his prescient claims of Russian dangers two years ago. Putin has turned back toward the Will To Power which Nietzsche illuminated as the one consistent emergent characteristic of Atheism. It is now known that the Ukranian "rebels" are actually Russian military functionaries who are working to destabilize and reconquer the Ukraine for Russian re-acquisition.

The Atheist claim that they should be trusted is laid to rest as we observe what Atheists do when they acquire power. If you haven't been paying attention, what Atheists do is to apply tactics toward consequences, and any tactic which moves them toward a desirable goal is to be used. And it is to be used without qualm or reference to odious moral principles. This is called Consequentialism, and it is the default ethical principle of behavior for Atheists. Alinsky wrote Rules For Radicals as a call to Consequentialism. Without naming it, the Atheist conquistadors of the 20th century bloodbaths used it without compunction. Its essence is the pursuit of strategic objectives with no moral compunction regarding tactics.

The Left, everywhere in the world, is Consequentialist. And so is Islam. But for Islam, Consequential is instilled as a part of the Prophet's instruction: the global caliphate is to be installed, and the deaths of any who resist are guaranteed and necessary - especially Jews. This allows for all brutalization that happens in the pursuit of the objective. It is an institutionalized barbarianism. And that makes it the Hegelian antithesis of western civilization; it is the civilization of the west which is the thesis. But there is no synthesis for either Putin or for Islam; both cultures might pretend to accept a synthesis, but only until they have refreshed, rearmed and then see an opportunity.

Obama is that opportunity. The world is currently without the braking force of thesis normally provided by western civilization, because the third type of Consequentialist after communism and Islam is the western Leftist. Obama, the apogee western Leftist for the next 2 1/2 years, is content to focus on applying Cloward-Piven to the United States in his attempt to subvert all U.S. systems and bring on destruction of U.S. institutions for the takeover promised in the First Humanist Manifesto (the declaration of the New Man, installed by the elimination of all support for the Original Man).

And that is why impeaching Obama will not change anything. The next four or five or more successors would also have to be impeached, because they, also, are traitorous Consequentialists.

There is a long, hard haul ahead. It's called Hope and Change, as Obama is applying it.

A Humanist Ruminates

This letter from a humanist contained this plaint:

"Imagine, if you can, a few hundred atheists getting together to build a town where no religions will be permitted. This is an extremely unlikely scenario. It would be much too sterile and insipid for us. Atheists are generally Humanists who are very interested in getting to know humans (hence the term Humanist), and understanding people, their religions and their culture.

Atheists tend to be totally non-self-aware. The history of Atheist governments is there for anyone to read (I know, history has been sanitized in the schools; that's no excuse). Humanism was actually a driver for the Atheist movements of the early 20th Century, which, for you who might not have gotten ancient history in school, was the beginning of the Atheist-Communist terrors which plunged Russia and China into blood. The Mao/Stalinists didn't find much in Atheism to guide them, but in the First Humanist Manifesto there was plenty.

The humanist moves on:

I find it curious that Delic and Alnuweiri are so passionate about allowing people to wear religious clothing, when they wear neither a hijab, a turban nor any religious items themselves. I wonder too, how they would feel if they visited a government office and were served by someone wearing a T-shirt with the Atheist Bus campaign message: “There’s probably no God — now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Would they feel uncomfortable?

Again, Atheists who declare themselves moral by their own authority and under their own theory of morality actually think that others should see them to be as moral as they themselves (which is the apogee of moral perfection, tautologically). The absurdity of that completely swishes past over their heads with no cognition whatsoever. At least with a hijab, a turban (which is probably not even a religious symbol), etc, one knows the worldview of the person they are in contact with. That is impossible with Atheists, who have only a rejectionist Void, or worse: an elitist humanist messiah complex as a worldview, with a relativist morality which suits the occasion as the Atheist sees fit.

However, I do think it would be a good idea for them to wear identifying T-shirts.

Leftist Lies and Fake News About the Google Memo

Lies jumped into the headlines almost immediately after the release of Damore's memo. Even though the memo is public now and available for anyone to read, apparently the Left depends upon their MSM to 'splain it to them. Or so the Leftist MSM seems to believe. Because the memo does not make the claims that much of (all of?) the MSM says it does. What it does do is to undercut the Victimhood meme, and to attribute the disproportionate population of males in tech to differences between males and females, and what it is that females actually want to do (apparently not that many want to code).

This thought fails the Left's narrative by declaring that [Victimhood Class: Women] is not perfectly equal in every aspect to [Oppressor Class: Men] (a heresy punishable by excommunication). It also presupposed, incorrectly, that science would be preferred over blind narrative, which was a naive view of the Leftist mind and emotional neediness.

The positions taken in the memo have been declared congruent with current science. No matter; the MSM has skewed the positions of the memos into unrecognizable false memes: blatant Lies.

FAKE NEWS: 4 Things The Google Manifesto DOESN’T Say That The Media Claim It Says

The mainstream media couldn't lower itself below its current status as digital sewage.