Arguholics Anonymous

An intriguing spat is taking place between leading atheists Sean Faircloth and Sam Harris over gun control in America.

Keen to keep the atheist political wagon clattering along in a straight line, Faircloth tries politely disarming Harris while insisting his approval rating of the author is still an impressive 90%.  Whether it’s on the way up or down he doesn’t say, but either way Harris presents an untroubled facade and wheels out an enormous cannon from which flies a 9,400 word FAQ including a shocking extract from Geoff Thompson’s Dead Or Alive – shocking in that such characters exist and walk loose, while our intellectual elite debate the kind of weapons such monsters should reasonably have access to.  And were they should be stored – which depends, as Harris helpfully points out, on the architecture of your home.

Royal Ascot 2011

High Society: Royal Ascot, 2011. The modern mind, far removed from the ideal of patience and tolerance, is so obsessed with status and image, drained of spiritual resources, and lacking in judgement that the least stress or provocation can trigger a descent into paranoid violence, with or without guns.  In England, possession of a firearm brings a mandatory five year prison term

Each swats away their rival’s canards and chestnuts with a flourish but in all the queries, comments, imaginary scenarios and zeppelins of hot air, with atheist critics carefully assigning each argument into the correct pigeonhole – keeping careful score of the ad hominem, straw manning, canards and chestnuts – not a single person dares mention the truth: modern society, from the leaders right down to the masses, has become a danger to its own existence.

Whatever safeguards once existed, whether an example of parental love and care, mythical figures of benevolence like the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas for younger minds, or saints and sages for older ones, activating empathy with mirror neurons and social emotions via dedicated oxytocin generators in the brain, or scriptural urges to eschew violence, have long been dismantled by the very busy atheists.  If the gene is selfish, well, why shouldn’t I be too?  If only the fittest survive, hadn’t it better be me?  The society based squarely on selfishness, greed and heavily defended property has become the ultimate Darwinist experiment; the result is an unmitigated disaster with no parallel in history.

stop sign alaska

Guns are not just for hurting people; they also express a profound social commentary: Alaskan street sign

The old canard – wait, or is it a chestnut? – is that war has always been with us.  But whether war is a disease or a sign of obstructed evolution, it is many times worse now than ever before, a simple fact completely hidden in the hysterical pinhole debate about automatic or semi automatic clips, the likelihood of lower status women being adequately trained in using killing machinery – debated at length by both Harris and Faircloth – and of course the correct and sensible strategic placing of weaponry around the home.

Atheists proudly tie increased atheism to increased education, forgetting to mention that war can be assessed on exactly the same basis.  This is because the Prussian education system created around the mid 19th century and immediately adopted by America was specifically designed to instil a homogenous viewpoints among the masses, viewpoints decided upon in advance by those in power and modified according to their needs.

For this to be successful, the media also had to be conscripted into the fold, so that an entire country became sealed from outside influences.  This was tremendous power.  Instead of trying to crush dissent among powerful and rebellious thinking adults, it could gradually be eliminated altogether by adopting the child into the state at an impressionable age to create, a decade and a half later, unquestioning civil servants, obedient mineworkers, and soldiers who only had to be shown a flag to march unhesitatingly into an enormous bonfire.

war deaths

Guns are a suitable emblem for those wishing to force their view onto others.  As Karl Marx said, “Darwinism suits my purpose” and others, too, used Darwin as justification for massacres to wipe out lower classes: Hitler reshaped the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ into “he who is not willing to fight, does not deserve to live.”  Eugenics, the use of medical science to eliminate less desirable types, is still practiced today.  Only last week it was found that Ethiopian Jews were being given powerful and long lasting contraceptives without their knowledge by Israeli doctors, and as late as last December, lower status women in Peru found out why they were unable to have babies; routine operations had included the removal of their fertility.  This was all accomplished by medical professionals in hospitals following government orders.


A society adopts violence because of leadership.  Hitler found it easy to generate hysteria and hatred, and these emotions were as central to his plans as they are to the American dictatorship

Eugenics emanated from the mind of Frances Galton, Darwin’s cousin, who saw no reason to tolerate those he judged least fit to survive, if this was Nature’s own mechanism. The concept of a superior class calls for an underclass to be defined, and then abused or eliminated, but the wars which followed actually wiped out the strongest, bravest and most fit of each generation.  This was Nature’s reward for arrogance.  A society built on war can never progress towards peace since every member must also be willing to approve the use of violence.  Just as in modern America, objectors are traitors: in WWI, women in England gave single men of military age white feathers to brand them as cowards, and shame them into signing up.  Of course, when they returned years later with faces blown away or limbs missing they were, once again, disowned.

Led by sociopaths and warmongers, the end result of a violent society must always be a violent population, just as surely as among groups led by men such as Martin Luther King or Ghandi the spiritual values of the leader were adopted, if in fits and starts, by their followers.

Thus, though Darwinism provided a basis for equality (vigorously opposed to slavery, Darwin realised his most vociferous enemies would be captains of slavery who had the most to gain from promoting separate evolutionary origins) paradoxically it offered a new and tempting scientific credibility for slaughters, and in a random world, science was now freed from any absolute moral compuction and gladly provided the tools to carry them out with superb efficiency.

obama cheering crowd

Crowd hysteria propels a new psychopathic liar into power: “my country, right or wrong”

The result was that mankind’s best genetics were wiped off the Earth in their millions, a legacy for which Darwin will likely be best remembered.  If better education has caused an increase in atheism, the statistics also indicate that despite religious wars of the past – sociopaths being as attracted to the power of religion then as to the power of politics today – spiritual values must also have done much more to restrain violence than to promote it.

The Prussian education system provided the willing fodder for at least two world wars, and its counterpart in America still fills a similar role, though the rising consciousness of the masses is starting to break free of the dogma, spreading its ideas via social media.  All fifty states now have petitions to secede from the union.  But still, the most absurd claims by government are accepted unquestioningly by a large segment watching the carefully orchestrated media presentations.  Magic bullets, disappearing airplanes and passengers (with the strange reappearance of their intact DNA), energetic witnesses found hanged a day before trials, buildings which mysteriously crumble into dust, wars launched on flimsy pretexts, trillions stolen from the public purse, millions dead overseas and ignored.

None of these ideas are taken seriously by the corporate owned media, although they are sometimes forced to discuss them since otherwise, they would be even more notable by their absence.  But propaganda is something which can only happen in other countries, where ignorant people are stupid enough to fall for it.  We know, because our media says so!

drone victims

Child drone victims of Obama’s brutal regime: something the fawning, impotent NY Times daintily describes as a “vexing constitutional issue”

Presidents in smart suits set the example with brutal invasions, dreadful slaughters of innocents and construction of colossal weapons factories; citizens sing the national anthem and agree the best way of keeping the peace is to hold a nuclear knife to other countries’ throats, threatening to flatten their cities and skin them all alive with a searing, boiling wind.  In this Bedlam the intellectuals debate with vigour the ideal number of buckles on their own straitjackets.

by state and year

The steady rise of autism, doubling about every 3.5 years, curiously reflects the gradual erosion of joined-up thinking in leading minds.  An obsession with unlimited detail completely obscures the larger picture

Truth is usually much simpler than deception, and has the added benefit of enlarging itself in the face of opposition and growing stronger over time.  Whatever the cause of this canker of degeneration in the modern brain, it will never be solved by finely tuned gun laws, multiple-tier registrations, precise definitions of weaponry, their distribution around the house (depending of course on your architecture, as Harris cautions), the likelihood of home invasions, or assault, battery, murder, rape, spousal abuse and the relative merits of weapons used for offence and defence; not to mention the possibility of error when stumbling across antagonists locked in combat, whose identities and motivations we cannot know for certain before blasting away. What about the possibility of two assailants with equal weapons?  An important point!  Let’s all debate it.

Chinagai Airstrike Victims - 30 Oct 2006

Leading by a good example: a single Obama drone burnt 83 children alive in 2006. Similar “Obama attacks” wipe out a dozen children each week, but this “vexing issue” is never considered worth reporting in the American media.  The charred piles of mincemeat, along with their weeping parents are described as “suspected insurgents”. Why not just be honest, and describe them as bogeymen?

These topics allow any opponent or anyone refusing to participate to be labelled as standing on the graves of children, drenched in blood, practically guilty of mass murder.  This is a playground without compare, for the intellectuals!  While Piers Morgan explodes like a rusty shotgun, the atheists gracefully bow and flourish and flounce about in endless dissections and hypothetical situations, each dressing in peacock feathers and carrying a torch to show themselves in a glorious saintly light.  Nobody wants to spoil the party and point out we are all knee deep in blood, surrounded in corpses, without any end in sight.

obama killings

This sixteen year old was targeted by Obama, because his father, an American citizen (also burnt alive in a separate attack) had spoken out against wars in Afghanistan. The youth was at a barbeque with friends at the time, several of whom later also died from their injuries. No apology was given to their grieving families and the incident was glossed over in the American media as “suspected insurgents”

Even if every gun on Earth was to vanish tonight, with the sociopathic mindset now prevalent, alternatives would be quickly found.  We are addicted to violence because it suits our philosophy, that the strong must survive, and weapons do indeed make us stronger.  Addictions are notoriously intractable because they usually involve some kind of weakness in the genetic makeup itself: drug addictions have remained impervious to billions of dollars spent and millions of ordinary harmless people locked away, and addictions to violence will also find a way.  Whether you are blinded by a bullet, a billiards cue or a broken bottle, the cause and the result are very similar.  Guns might free up the hospital bed a little quicker, and that’s about all. The problem is not guns, the problem is that so many would be so frightened of their own society that they want one for defence.


Nobody expresses curiosity as to the causes, other than the throwaway shrug, “evil has always existed.. what can you do?”  It all seems like snake oil salesmen debating which leeches are most effective for cancer, how many are required, and at what time of day, and whether they should be applied to the armpits or the buttocks.  This kind of debate can go on forever – which greatly suits the mind of the debaters – since none of it even begins to address the real problem.

jade goody in nightclub brawl

Brains on the edge: UK celebrity Jade Goody in nighclub brawl

With these pinhole visionaries, the price, style and fastening of gas masks is far more interesting than admitting the real problem lies within the smokestacks; now is the chance to wallow in detail, scenarios, hypotheses, zingers, ripostes and elaborations, and swat away canards and chestnuts for the gallery with a joyful flourish.  Well played, sir!  Oh, straw man argument – bad show, sir!  The joy is in the detail, the beloved detail, in circling and describing it from all angles, displaying mastery of its nuances and our superior expression, merrily until the wee hours, up, down, and all around, again and again: masters of everything, bar the obvious.


Afghanistan is now the longest running American slaughter, narrowly edging out the Civil War. American society has been built and maintained by violence: American weapons spend per year is now more than $1.2 trillion, including a large sum for atomic weapons cunningly hidden in the DoE budget. If the country solves every problem with weapons, why are the masses expected to believe in peaceful solutions?

About iain carstairs

I have a great interest in both scientific advances and the beauty of religion, and created about 15 years ago with the aim of finding common ground between the scientist and the believer, and to encourage debate between the two sides.
This entry was posted in Accomplices, Afghanistan, CNN, Massacres, NBC, NY Times and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Arguholics Anonymous

  1. You’re right about Sam Harris. I love him. Always so calm and cool but blasts out insanely long defenses.

  2. Inspired by your inspiring title and opening points, I want to comment on the hostile quality of some current on-line discourse in this field. On the whole I think it’s healthy that scientists and supporters of Darwinism are no longer mute, as they were for decades, in the face of creationist and fundamentalist attacks. But the counterattacks have acquired some limitations of their own. I suppose this is partly because the medium of the internet lends itself to either group adoration or group loathing, which in turn stems from the extremism that develops in groups where the opinions of individuals who are surrounded by like-minded folks become all the more pronounced and emotional.

    The result is that defenders of evolution sound much as if they are defending an orthodoxy as vigilantly and viciously as the church has at times defended its own orthodoxy. Examples can be found on some of the blog posts and reactions on Jerry Coyne’s popular Why Evolution Is True site and on other sites and FB pages on such topics as atheism.

    The irony here is that the Darwinism defended by evolutionists leaves plenty of room to encompass the emotional supernatural and superstitious beliefs of the traditional religious believer, the “accomodationists,” and the non-theistic but sentimental lovers of nature, all of whom are at times the objects of the strict-Darwinism counterattack. That is, as long as those beliefs boost people’s ability to survive a little better individually or collectively (even allowing for the debate over group selection), those beliefs/irrationalities/magical thinking all have some evolutionary validity. Our brains are aimed primarily at survival, not truth. The severe logic and empiricism that scientists strive for in their work is not a requirement for the survival/thriving of most folks. Science supporters who hope to “stamp out” irrational thinking and emotional beliefs are contradicting a commandment of their own bible that says, “Above all, thou shalt try thine hardest to survive.”

    So my hope is that pro-evolution rhetoric becomes a little less quick on the trigger and more inviting to those who (like me) seek to use the basic scientific picture and history of living things as the foundation for a personal sense of purpose, values, and meanings.

    Brock Haussamen

    • Good to hear from you again. Evolution is clearly a fact – nobody who has studied DNA can refute it. But the mechanism behind it is what is not known yet, and all conclusions so far have to be called “too hasty”. My next essay will be on the “irrefutable proofs” of Natural Selection which have been shown to be fraudulent – whether inadvertent or just because of wishful thinking. Some examples are still in the textbooks given to school kids today!

      The Darwin theory about random mutations was packaged along with evolution, and forcefully projected throughout the scientific establishment by the X Club (of which the aggressive Huxley was a member). It was no subtle or genial approach – they had definite plans and they were determined to see them through. They honestly believed it was correct, and in their minds they had little choice but push it or else the idea would prevail that “God still did it” which meant capitulating again to the church. Wallace’s earlier theory was more advanced than Darwin’s but with less research, and Wallace believed in a creator: so the two ideas are not incompatible at all. There’s evidence Darwin leapt into the fray and adopted part of Wallace’s work, but didn’t give credit. The alternative was for Darwin to lose the advantage of more than a decade of work! Wallace had religious beliefs, having started without them, whereas Darwin was just the reverse. Their personalities were interesting: Darwin became prone to melancholy and died relatively young, while Wallace became indominatably cheerful and lived to an old age.

      The emotion of wanting to believe in an aspect of a theory not supported by evidence has caused many sincere people to lend their names to it because it really seemed like it ought to be true, and therein lies the “faith” aspect. Once it became entrenched, it was defended as mindlessly as faith had been before. In fact I did a search on “best proof of evolution” and found many sites in which every writer said, “the best proof is everything! everything proves it,” “yes, I agree totally, everything is proof of Darwinism” and so on. But as I read page after page of this euphoria, I realised nobody could actually give a single instance which you could call a working example, or a proof. It was all euphoria.

      Because of this, the whole of Darwinism is now falling into disrepute, when it might have formed the basis for a concrete science. In 10 or 20 years the name Darwin will be an embarrassment because of the newer and more sensitive technology which will show genetic changes virtually in real time, in response to all kinds of stimuli. This is the great goal of biology, and it looks like it could even happen a lot sooner! The world is in for a massive shock; just about all the huge edifices built on Darwinism will come tumbling to the ground overnight.

      • Judging from the intensity of the defense of Darwinism, it doesn’t show obvious signs of collapse yet–or maybe the intensity reflects all the more vulnerability than is evident. Also, I like your point about faith as a belief in what ‘ought’ to be true. I wrote this week about sociologist Peter Berger’s theory of religion as a socially constructed knowledge and how it might apply, partly if not wholly, to what we know about life on earth. It probably reflects my own “stretches” of faith.

  3. Yes, I read that and found it very interesting! But the writing is on the wall for “random mutations”. After all, how does error-checking machinery and error-fixing machinery jump out of errors? The problem is that, in a scientist’s mind, the only alternative is an old man on a hill wearing sandals and turning everyone he dislikes into a pillar of salt.

    In the same way that if the only alternative to the old man with sandals was what passed for science in 1000 BC, he too would start to look pretty good.

  4. Jon Ellman says:

    I was hoping that the numbers on the pictures of dead children would point to the sources to verify whether they are actually victims of drone strikes, but there are no sources, can you tell us where you got that image? Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s