Author: VD

How’s that postchristianity working out for you?

Richard Dawkins is discovering that the postchristian society he helped bring about isn’t necessarily to his liking:

The College Historical Society (the Hist) has tonight rescinded its invitation to Richard Dawkins to address the society next year.

Auditor of the Hist Bríd O’Donnell announced the cancellation in a statement on her Instagram page, saying that she had been “unaware of Richard Dawkins’ opinions on Islam and sexual assault until this evening”, adding that the society “will not be moving ahead with his address as we value our members comfort above all else”.

“The invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak at the society was made by my predecessor and I followed up the invitation with limited knowledge of Mr. Dawkins”, O’Donnell said. “I had read his Wikipedia page and researched him briefly. Regretfully I didn’t look further into him before moving forward with the invitation.”

“I want to thank everyone who pointed out this valuable information to me”, O’Donnell added. “I truthfully hope we didn’t cause too much discomfort and if so, I apologise and will rectify it.”

No Christianity, no inquiry, no science. Dawkins’s central thesis was not only wrong, it was backward. Christianity and science are not only NOT at war, Christianity is a necessary condition for science, logically, historically, and observably. 

UPDATE: Bruce Charleton notes that Richard Dawkins simply lacks the intellectual courage to question his godless convictions, or even to contemplate the relevant evidence.

A few years ago I met Richard Dawkins at a small, relaxed party.

I had a question I wanted to put to him.

At the time I was not a Christian, but I was interested in religions and was (for example) studying religiosity and atheism in relation to personality.

I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival.

The point I put to Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world.

How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?

Dawkins simply shook off this point, with a literal shake of his head looking downwards, and the comment to the effect that the scientists and Christians were two entirely different groups of people.

A lesson in failed leadership

I haven’t watched a single minute of the NFL this season, but I’m moderately well-informed because I read Outkick. Jason Whitlock, who has been on a roll lately, astutely observes why the Saints are unexpectedly underperforming this season:

Brees has never been the most talented NFL QB. His intangibles, particularly his leadership, are what made him great. The guy’s reputation was impeccable. 

He was the guy New Orleans and the Saints rallied around. Jenkins and Thomas ruined that when they publicly criticized Brees because Brees had the audacity to defend standing for the national anthem. 

Brees is no longer the leader of the Saints, who fell to 1-2 Sunday night. He’s a player on the team. It’s a tragedy what Jenkins and Thomas did to Brees, the NFL’s modern-day Walter Payton. If the Saints miss the playoffs, blame Jenkins, Thomas and the media race hustlers.

Leaders have to lead. Leaders have to face down challenges to their authority. Leaders who back down and submit to the demands of their followers also give up their leadership. Once a leader abdicates his position, especially if he does so under duress or out of cowardice, he is very unlikely to ever get it back, even if his leadership is in everyone’s best interest.

Drew Brees had an obligation to the team to stand his ground and stare down his critics. Because he failed in his responsibility to do so, his teammates no longer have confidence in him or his leadership.

The psychopaths of Silicon Valley

The big tech cartel is run by a series of literally psychopathic mediocrities. It’s not only worse than you think, it’s crazier than you would ever imagine:

Like many people during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, Ina and David Steiner took a hobby and turned it into a business. Ina worked at a publishing company and collected books. David, a video producer, had been going to yard sales since he was a kid. He liked advertising collectibles, antique tools — anything that caught his eye. In 1999, four years after eBay was founded, when the notion of transacting with strangers online was still for the bold, they started a modest website offering advice to buyers.

They called it AuctionBytes, which later morphed into EcommerceBytes. Eventually, by tracking trends and policy updates across the industry, it became a resource for sellers on a number of platforms, from Etsy to Amazon — a kind of trade publication for anyone whose business is auctioning items out of a garage or storage unit. Today, Ina is in her late 50s and does the writing. David is in his early 60s and is the publisher. Neither has spoken to the press since eBay’s alleged plot against them came to light.

EcommerceBytes may not have been well known, but it was required reading at the highest levels of eBay. In early 2019, Ina Steiner shared the news that eBay had hired a new communications chief, Steve Wymer, who would report directly to Wenig.

The two men shared an aggressive streak. Wenig had spent most of his career in East Coast financial media, as a lawyer and executive at Thomson Reuters, and he maintained a certain New York alpha quality. Before working as a technology spokesman, Wymer had spun for three Republican senators in Washington, and he kept up an interest in politics. When Rep. John Lewis tweeted about the civic importance of getting in “good trouble, necessary trouble,” for instance, Wymer replied that he had “another view on how the USA should be governed. My view is equal to your view.”

Publicly, Wenig celebrated eBay’s five community values — among them, “People are basically good” and “We encourage you to treat others the way you want to be treated.” But together, he and Wymer worked to forge a more combative eBay, one that drew less inspiration from the Golden Rule and more from “The Sopranos.” (They did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and eBay would not make any executives available for interviews.)

While neither Wenig nor Wymer have been charged — both have denied involvement in the intimidation campaign — they clearly loathed Ina Steiner. In April 2019, she wrote about the chief executive’s compensation, noting that his haul of $18 million was 152 times what the average worker got, and mildly suggested it was coming at the expense of eBay sellers. After her post was published, Wymer texted a link to Wenig, adding: “We are going to crush this lady.”

Whether Steiner was breaking news about questionable expenditures, such as a pub eBay built on its campus, or marking more innocuous developments, Wenig seemed to find her existence infuriating. On May 31, 2019, she wrote that he had “promised to give sellers greater protection” from fraudulent buyers.

“Shockingly reasonable …” Wymer wrote to Wenig.

“I couldn’t care less what she says,” the CEO responded, adding: “Take her down.”

It’s pretty obvious who are the ticket takers in this story. The two men who were most responsible for the criminal actions are not only not facing criminal charges like their subordinates, they have been parachuted into plum positions elsewhere.

In June, Wenig was reelected to the board of General Motors, a position that pays $317,000 a year. Mary Barra, GM’s chief executive, called the cyberstalking scandal “regrettable” but noted “it didn’t involve any GM business.” Wymer has a new job, as chief executive of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Silicon Valley. The chair of the board said the nonprofit was “aware” of what happened at eBay, but believes Wymer is “a leader with integrity” and was the unanimous choice for the job.

The importance of discernment

I wouldn’t go as far as Bruce Charlton in calling a lack of discernment a sin, but then, there is a qualitative difference in being unable to discern evil and being unwilling to do so:

I suspect that the discernment of evil is maybe the most important thing to do about evil; much more important than (supposedly) ‘fighting’ evil. We absolutely need to identify, and correctly, what and who is on the side of evil: who are evil-allied. And these evil-allied may well turn-out to be almost-everything, and almost-everybody – we should be prepared for that possibility. 

If I am right, this widespread and determined self-blinding to evil, the refusal to identify and acknowledge evil; may be one of the most prevalent and significant of our many modern sins. 

He is correct, however, to observe that the refusal to identify, acknowledge, and oppose evil is both prevalent and significant in society today. I have no patience or respect for those who insist on blathering about “stupidity” or how the Left “just doesn’t understand”. At this point, the inability to discern evil looks a lot more like a refusal to accept the reality of evil. Because rich and powerful individuals are not abusing children and offering them up to demons out of stupidity.

He’s also right to point out that you have to spot the target before you can FFE on it.

Tinkerbell is black too

To precisely no one’s surprise, blackwashing Ariel the Little Mermaid proved to be insufficient, because the SJW appetite can never be sated. At least this way, when the Devil Mouse movie inevitably flops, they will have the excuse of blaming racist audiences:

Yara Shahidi is getting her wings.

The actor is set to play Tinkerbell in Disney’s “Peter Pan and Wendy,” the studio’s latest live-action adaptation. Shahidi joins a cast that features Jude Law as Captain Hook, with Alexander Molony as Peter Pan and newcomer Ever Anderson as Wendy.

“Pete’s Dragon” director David Lowery is on board to direct and co-wrote the script with Toby Halbrooks. Jim Whitaker is producing.

Though there have been many adaptations of the Peter Pan story, Shahidi will be the first Black woman to take on the role on screen. The decision follows recent moves by Disney to diversify their casting. 

I’ll call it now. Disney is going to go bankrupt. Not today, not tomorrow, and not next year, but it is now apparent that their convergence has reached a point that the corporate cancer simply cannot be excised. It’s really rather remarkable that in the face of all the various complicated challenges that the Devil Mouse is presently facing, they have concluded the answer is moar negroes.

And they are certainly creating opportunities in the wake of their death spiral.

Just because I am cruel

I enjoy publicly posting 538’s presidential election forecasts for future reference. These are 538’s predictions as of September 27, 2020.

Chance of winning

Biden 77 percent, Trump 22 percent

Electoral votes

Biden 331, Trump 207

Popular vote

Biden 52.9 percent, Trump 45.8 percent

My prediction remains exactly the same as it was on November 9, 2016. Donald Trump will win the presidential election in a Trumpslide that is bigger than his 2016 victory. #Trumpslide2020

Whatever shall they do?

It’s very hard not to laugh at the difficulty liberals have with the idea that people genuinely support Donald Trump’s presidency:

Let me start by saying, I get it. I understand the confusion. The anger. The heartbreak.

Someone you thought was a good and kind person has revealed themselves to be… something different. Someone you love has exposed their support for or tolerance of bigotry, hatred, selfishness, narcissism, bullying, racism, sexism, abuse and violence through their support of Trump.

Maybe you found out directly. Or maybe you always had a hunch but were never quite sure. Regardless of the way you find out, the realization is, quite simply, devastating. Horrifying. Confusing. Embarrassing. Maddening. Demoralizing.

I know. I get it. Truly, I do. And sadly, so do plenty of other people.

So here’s the reality you’re – that we’re – currently facing: someone we love is supporting Trump.

So what the hell do we do about it?

As always, I recommend responding to any friend or family member who tests the waters with a dismissive reference to “Trump” or “Drumpf” with “I think you mean the God-Emperor!” Stops them in their tracks and shuts them down every single time. Finish them off with a straightforward declaration of fact: Trump is the greatest U.S. President since Andrew Jackson.

I, for one, certainly don’t have any problem with their solutions.

Let me be very clear, just because someone is family, they do not get the privilege of being in your life. “But they’re family” isn’t a reason to give someone access to your life and jeopardize your wellbeing. What these boundaries look like are different for everyone. For some people, it might mean a shift, but you’re still able to maintain some kind of relationship. For others, it might be cutting them out completely. Believe me, it is not easy at all. It hurts bad when your MAGA-hat wearing cousin calls you all kinds of names on social media. But this is why the unfollow, unfriend, and block buttons were created. You do not need to subject yourself to bullies and toxic relationships just because someone is related to you.

If any friend or relative of mine ever decided to remove the privilege of being in their life and having access to them due to my outspoken support for the greatest U.S. President since Andrew Jackson, I would sincerely thank them. And then I would happily go about living the rest of my life without ever giving the moron another thought. I don’t waste my time on stupid people.

Could be worse

 President Trump appoints Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday, capping a dramatic reshaping of the federal judiciary that will resonate for a generation and that he hopes will provide a needed boost to his reelection effort.

Barrett, a former clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, said she was “truly humbled” by the nomination and quickly aligned herself with Scalia’s conservative approach to the law, saying his “judicial philosophy is mine, too.”

Barrett, 48, was joined in the Rose Garden by her husband and seven children. If confirmed by the Senate, she would fill the seat vacated by liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It would be the sharpest ideological swing since Clarence Thomas replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago.

I don’t particularly like that Barrett is Catholic or that she has adopted Haitians, but she appears to be sincere in her faith, she is almost certainly reliable on abortion, she doesn’t seem to have a plethora of questionable decisions behind her, and she appears to be sound on guns and immigration. While it is simply wrong for a white Protestant nation to be ruled over by a haphazard collection of Catholics and other minorities, there is no question that Barrett should be a marked improvement on the late, unlamented Ruth Bader Ginsberg. 

But we will have to wait and see how it goes. We simply can’t know if she is a ticket-taker or not, or what the ramifications of that will prove to be.

Don’t worry, Tommy

It’s cute that Thomas Friedman thinks he won’t be personally involved in the civil war he considers to be a possibility:

During an appearance on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman expressed his concern over what could happen in November if there were enough doubt about the outcome of the November 3 presidential election.

Friedman warned such a lack of confidence in the American election process could lead to a second civil war.

“I found it stunning and surprising,” Friedman said of President Donald Trump’s unwillingness to commit to accepting the possible outcome of election results. “Anderson, you know, I began my career as a journalist covering Lebanon’s second civil war and its history. And I’m terrified to find myself ending my career as a journalist covering America’s potential second civil war in its history.”

Friedman and other “journalists” will no doubt be surprised to discover that they won’t just be covering America’s Civil War 2.0. They’ll be considered enemy combatants:

The End of Holocaustianity

I don’t think David Cole demonstrates a very good grasp of basic human psychology in his article addressing the implications of the recent Schoen survey reporting that Millennials don’t know about the Holocaust, don’t care about the Holocaust, and are nearly as likely to blame the Jews for it as the National Socialist German Workers Party:

All the hand-wringing over the survey is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. A half century of high-decibel Holocaust education hasn’t failed…it’s worked too well. Millennials hate Nazis with the passion of someone actually wronged by Nazis, which is ironic because no millennial has ever met an actual Nazi. Mind you, they think they have. According to the survey, 54{5274a41d3bd2aa3d5829764fe19e8a7ecbc79c108731aad5f1ff2d292e60e2b4} of millennials think the U.S. is crawling with “neo-Nazis.” Where’d they get that impression? Take a guess: from Jews who’ve misused the Holocaust to smear any white who displeases them as a “Nazi.” That 30{5274a41d3bd2aa3d5829764fe19e8a7ecbc79c108731aad5f1ff2d292e60e2b4} of millennials blame the Holocaust on America, FDR, and Jews shows just how well the propaganda has worked. White = Nazi, “full stop.” Sure those kids can’t name an actual concentration camp, but who cares? It was never about that. It was always about smearing non-Nazis as Nazis. It’s not about remembering the genuine Nazi menace of the past, but rather creating a phantom Nazi menace for the present.

To conservatives responding to the Schoen survey by mindlessly repeating, “We need more Holocaust education,” be careful what you wish for. I’d wager that, among American whites, there’s a direct correlation between receiving massive doses of Holocaust education in well-funded suburban schools, with yearly visits to Holocaust museums and in-class lectures by survivors, and a fanatical desire to punch Nazis, which in today’s political climate translates to “punch anyone on the right.” Or any Trump voter. Or any straight white male who doesn’t detest himself.

Holocaust education has always been weaponized. Jews will make a big deal about how appalling it is that millennials can’t name Ravensbrück, Oranienburg, or Gross-Rosen, but it’s insincere outrage. Holocaust ed has panned out exactly as planned. “Never again” is not about looking back, but looking straight ahead, stopping and stomping the present-day “enemies” of a hate-filled Jewish establishment that despises the West, its traditions, and anything white, Christian, or European in origin.

I wouldn’t say the program has panned out exactly as planned. To the contrary, it is observably going seriously awry, at least if one is to take it at face value. Incessant indoctrination results in one of four things. The stupid and the indifferent ignore it. The average resent it. The midwits embrace it as Gospel. The intelligent reject it. So, the more the Promethean professional victim class pushes their “we dindu nuffin” history of an ancient genocide that occurred for absolutely no reason at all, the more the younger generations will resent and reject the relentless historical propaganda of the last 50 years.

And then history will repeat itself. Again.