Ironism

Amerika, like the projects before it, broke new ground with a few ideas. The first was to view politics as an instance of herd behavior; another was to oppose diversity itself instead of the groups involved. Now it expands into inspection of human motivations and how those result in a distorted worldview.

Few think about ironism, mainly because the word is rarely used in what would be its consistent sense, namely to speak of those who advocate an approach to reality and moral choice rooted in irony, or things not being what they seem to be. Ironists extend this inversion beyond appearance and deny that things are as they are.

There is great power in denying that things are as they are. One becomes instantly messianic because people cannot tell the difference between more accurate perception, as happens with upsets in the scientific field, and simply projecting a conjecture as a replacement for reality itself.

Ironism becomes self-reifying, or manifesting itself by pursuit of itself, because it changes the human social order to be reality-denying and then only reality-deniers win. This is why once-thriving societies just drop off the map and fall out of history; their people went into denial, a form of insanity, and become incompetent, at which point the societies failed to do anything of relevance and withered away.

In other words, once ironism begins its cancerous work, soon only the bad will win, and the good will lose, which becomes important because the good are what make civilization possible. The bad are what unravel civilization and replace it with people living third world style, in anarchic personal lives bonded into thronging herds.

One of the approaches that Amerika has taken over the years is to view politics as philosophy because every organized system of thought or behavior reflects an underlying way of viewing the world and sense of purpose within it. This reveals some surprises.

For example, under the surface of “collectivism” we find that in fact, individualism motivates each member of that group. This is why idiots bleat about collectivism a lot; they do not want to acknowledge the sin they share in common with that collective, which is the desire to be above anyone who might tell them “no” or that their ideas are unrealistic. This is why conservatism fails, for example.

When we look deeply into individualism, we find that some people are merely bad, and they choose badly, going with their herd animal nature instead of observing, understanding, and adapting to reality. Since they are one step removed from nature through the cooperation and judgment of others, they exist entirely in that bubble.

Soon that bubble expands to include others as they seek to find compromise with the bad ones. This leads to an eternally recurring pattern where human groups become inverted, then ironic, and through that, act against all sensible and natural instincts, propelling them down a path of both self-destruction and a generalized “impulse to destroy”:

We know very little of the Adamites, but the picture that emerges of them – one that comes primarily from their enemies – was of a people more like the Hippie subculture of the 20th century rather than the Middle Ages.

For example, the chronicler Laurence of Brezova writes:

Wandering through forests and hills, some of them fell into such insanity that men and women threw off their clothes and went nude, saying that clothes had been adopted because of the sin of the first parents, but that they were in a state of innocence. From the same madness they supposed that they were not sinning if one of their brethren had intercourse with one of the sisters, and if the woman conceived, she said she had conceived of the Holy Spirit.

The scholar Enea Silvio Piccolomini, who later became Pope Pius II (1458-1464) also noted their supposed sexual activities:

They indulged in promiscuous intercourse, but no one might take a lover without the consent of Adam, their chief elder. When one of these brethren ardently desired a sister, he took her by the hand, and, going with her to the chief elder, said, “My soul is afire with love of this woman.” Whereupon the elder would reply, “Go, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.”

These views of Adamites were not necessarily new – in the early centuries of Christianity there was a sect called Adamites and that St. Augustine even mentions they practiced nudism while rejecting marriage.

Wherever ironism goes, the result is the same: invert all that works and replace it with whatever affirms the power of the individual over reality and common sense.

They seek this inversion through “reality is not as it seems” because they desire to cover up something, specifically that natural selection applies to humans and so we are unequal in character, ability, intelligence, and talent because these are inborn and we cannot alter them.

For them, every fact is something to be interpreted in a way that advances the ideology of Leftism. The best way to do this is to read the facts backward, so that effects appear to be causes. Witness a mundane example of backward thinking:

The research, published in the journal Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, indicates that a chronic lack of money can be damaging to people’s health and wellbeing – something which currently isn’t widely acknowledged by policy makers and mental healthcare providers.

Edited by Dr. Jaime Delgadillo, Lecturer in Clinical Psychology at the University of Sheffield, the international collection of research featured in a special edition of this journal indicates that people living in poverty are more likely to develop mental health problems, which could be related to their increased exposure to adverse life events and a chronic state of unmet material and emotional needs.

The studies presented in the journal examine the relationship between social inequalities and psychological care. Together, the findings show that people living in poverty are less likely to start treatment for mental health problems. Once they do start treatment, they are more likely to have ongoing mental health problems after the treatment is completed, and they face a range of material (e.g. lack of transportation) and social (e.g. stigma) barriers to accessing support. The studies also indicate that people living in poor neighbourhoods are less likely to recover from depression and anxiety symptoms after psychological treatment, compared to people from more affluent neighbourhoods.

Turning this around:

The research, published in the journal Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, indicates that bad health and low wellbeing can cause a chronic lack of money – something which currently isn’t widely acknowledged by policy makers and mental healthcare providers.

Edited by Dr. Jaime Delgadillo, Lecturer in Clinical Psychology at the University of Sheffield, the international collection of research featured in a special edition of this journal indicates that people with mental health problems are more likely to be living in poverty, which could be related to their increased proclivity for adverse life events and a chronic state of unrecognized material and emotional needs.

The studies presented in the journal examine the relationship between mental health and social inequalities. Together, the findings show that people with mental health problems are less likely to start treatment for living in poverty. Once they do start treatment, they are more likely to have ongoing mental health problems before and after the treatment is completed, and they face a range of material (e.g. lack of transportation) and social (e.g. stigma) barriers to accessing support. The studies also indicate that people living in poor neighbourhoods are less likely to recover from depression and anxiety symptoms after psychological treatment, compared to people from more affluent neighbourhoods.

The last two lines did not require writing because they baldly stated facts, which is why this study gets away with what it does. The earlier material interpreted those facts backward — as our counter-inversion shows — and used those facts to make broad proclamations about policy.

Later facts however simply state the association the study found, which is that some people achieve both wealth and mental health, while others achieve both poverty and mental disease. That is the opposite of the lede which the story chose:

a chronic lack of money can be damaging to people’s health and wellbeing

In fact, as anyone with experience in the world can tell you, poor mental health leads to poor decision-making which leads to having less money. In order to support the dogma of egalitarianism, however, they have to flip that around and blame a lack of money for the mental health issues of the poor.

Since the dawn of time, the riff of ironism has plagued humanity because people want to believe it. Like a good cult, it excuses their failings and blames someone else all in the same statement, while giving a sense of meaning to lives that doubtless need more of it.

Once they are hooked, they cannot remove the parasite because it has become part of what supports their self-esteem. Caught in hopeless contradiction, the civilization collapses, and the last thing that most people try to do is loudly bleat proclamations of innocence as the result of their actions brings their world down around them.

Read more from Amerika…

No Man Is Illegal

I was one of five men who had spent weeks cleaning up a long-abandoned city building cluttered with trash and debris from collapsing infrastructure. Our project to open a soup kitchen to help support the local community of illiterate migrants and mentally ill homeless people was nearing completion.

While loading chunks of broken concrete from a pile of rubble into my hauling bucket, I noticed a strange luminescent lamp laying on its side. The lamp seemed sturdy and I rubbed off its grime to reveal a golden surface embossed with intricate designs. It rumbled violently and large blue genie burst out before me and began levitating.

With a booming voice he told me that my unselfish actions had freed him from centuries of systemic oppression and now he would reward me with three wishes.

Most people wish for love or world peace but with my first wish I asked to be made immensely wealthy — not for my own purposes of course, as I don’t care much for money, but so I could buy my mom a house and ostentatiously donate to food shelters and asinine social causes that make me feel superior to the hopelessly impoverished.

The genie nodded that he understood my brave wish, closed his eyes, hummed loudly, and a few seconds later many billions were now mine to use for any purpose I deemed ethical. Looking around, it seemed nothing much had changed with the world. Some numbers in a bank account were different and I had stacks of paper and gold sitting somewhere, but everything else seemed normal. I took a deep breath and kept going.

For my second wish, I looked the genie deep in his vacant eyes and told him I wished that no man was illegal. He snickered derisively at me before clearing his throat and looking down to regain his composure. He then continued with the customary gesture of waving his hands magically and acknowledged my command had been fulfilled.

It turned out this time there were a few side effects I hadn’t considered. For example, I had failed to consider that a nation’s only lasting wealth is its people and that capabilities for civilization among populations differ greatly, so borders have historically acted as a bank vault storing the wealth of nations by securing their population. Also, being accustomed to first world standards, I had assumed these were normal and natural throughout the world, which turned out not to be the case at all.

With no man illegal, nations were rendered borderless and those with civilization were immediately flooded by low-IQ high time preference third worlders trying to get to where people had built something good. It was quite a shock to find out 90% of the world is a disaster of poor people with low intelligence barely able to figure out food, clothing, and shelter, and almost entirely unable to plan or organize.

During a sober moment, they looked around at their countrymen, realized they would never develop civilization, and decided the best course of action was to flee their homelands to get away from the mass of people possessing the same traits as themselves, which in the aggregate had created their national conditions of colossal failure.

The previously successful nations that were now borderless quickly lost their unity and shared notion of common sense in the frenzied greed of peasant fantasies where each took as much as they could while shirking responsibilities and accountability. It was looting in slow motion.

This worldwide revolution made history obsolete by removing divisions between the people who developed nations and those who wanted to enjoy what was beyond their station. Developments that took hardy people many centuries to achieve found their nourishing populations replaced by millions of incapables unable to keep civilization afloat. Worst of all, because they knew they were intruding squatters unable to achieve basic standards, the migrants hated the natives for their abilities and openly wished for their downfall.

Wealthy nations became poor overnight and the work of good people was diverted to trying to fix problems created by the imported population. Some natives tried to build a nation within a nation in an effort to preserve their culture and its essential aspects that now struggled under the weight of chaotic disunity. Infrastructure and institutions could no longer manage clean up on the messes of outsiders, and even after sacrificing the possibility of keeping a high level of culture, there was not enough wealth and energy to hold things together. A free fall to a sustainable third world standard ensued.

With my third wish, I asked the genie to restore lawful borders. He snickered again and this time I felt silly from the realization that I needed an appointment at the laser removal clinic to take care of that embarrassing leftist slogan tattoo that seemed so edgy when I was a teenager.

Read more from Amerika…

Amerika.org Under DOS Attack By Scared Leftists

You may have found it difficult to access this site since Friday, May 4, 2018 because an angry group of Leftists have been engaging in a denial-of-service attack against this site and its anti-SJW metal brethren. The bad news is that this took us down intermittently for five days, but the good news is that it shows they fear us.

Leftists realize that 2018 is a huge year because we are fifty years past the Great Revolution of 1968. During that time, Leftist policies have been revealed to (1) fail to fix the problems they claimed were inherent in the old order, and (2) produce even worse problems.

This has caused panic on the Left. They know their time is ending.

In response, they have unleashed an orgy of violence, repression, and censorship — much as history predicted they would do, based on the events in France in the 1700s and Russia in the 1900s — and have attacked what they see as the most accurate voices against them. We are proud to be on that list.

Thank you to all who have written, sent help, bought books, donated time, donated money, and most of all, not given up. They did not break you, and they have not broken us.

Now on to the good details. This DOS attack consisted of two prongs: a TCP/IP-based attack against the machine that hosts several of our sites, and an HTTP-based attack against our PHP-based scripts. Our host, Dreamhost, managed to block the former attack, and with some crufty old 1990s know-how, we have lessened the latter.

You can see one Leftist crowing about the attack — which also assaulted Gab.ai and American Renaissance, among others — via the Tweet pictured above.

Unfortunately for this Leftist, we have the IP addresses of his friends who are participating in the second prong of the attack. Links go to ARIN which will tell you which ISP owns this address. For the first prong, we think a rented botnet was used, possibly of Russian origin.

156.197.115.103
201.6.241.88
90.86.177.149
50.33.53.90
41.250.212.244
195.55.255.158
41.248.201.66
89.101.246.18
177.11.148.220
146.255.180.237
89.101.246.18
156.197.115.103
109.237.120.70
95.84.65.36
125.59.41.7
186.89.119.5
190.62.35.248
213.87.101.92
177.35.204.164
202.80.214.99
186.92.211.82
89.211.190.40
50.33.53.20
222.124.79.40
5.36.106.166
64.121.90.128
98.204.103.9
172.69.70.153
172.68.27.82

One of these IPs has been linked in the past to one Tulio Baars, who uses the email addresses [email protected] and [email protected], who you can find on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Baars works at Garage and Catarse, where he uses many of the same technologies employed in this attack. We continue investigating. In the meantime, several of the IP addresses used were linked to other email addresses such as [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. They seem to mostly be active at night, suggesting that they run their scripts and then go off to bed.

We will keep you posted with further announcements. In the meantime, thank you for reading and helping us weather this storm.

Read more from Amerika…

Leftism = Egalitarianism

As we enter the age where Leftism, having gained supremacy fifty years ago and failed in all of its promises, prepares to pass on into the dust-bin of history, it makes sense to understand what Leftism is.

On this site, we treat politics as a series of philosophies. Philosophies are explanation for how the world works and what we should do about it. At the core, each philosophy possesses a basic statement which summarizes its approach, and this is why they are distinctive.

It has become common — and that word never means anything good — for people to bloviate on about how they are “neither Left or Right,” which forgets that these two things are distinct philosophies, and like many things at a basic level, indicate a necessary fork in the road of human thinking.

Very few realize that the Right is our continuation of what was there before Leftism, and that while it has been misinterpreted and linguistically slaughtered like everything else in our declining society, its basic philosophy still stands: conserve the best of the past while aiming for inner excellence.

Even fewer understand Leftism. What is Leftism? An encylopedia provides us the roots of Leftist philosophy:

Left: In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life.

Now we can see the basics of the philosophy: it is egalitarianism plus the idea that the State should enforce it. Continuing our exploration, we ask, “What is Egalitarianism?” Fortunately a specialized encyclopedia of philosophy provides an explanation of egalitarianism:

Egalitarians think, firstly, that unfair life prospects should be equalized. Secondly, that equality is the most or one of the most important irreducible intrinsic or constitutive worth(s) of justice. Thirdly, that welfare should be increased. Fourthly, that justice is comparative. Fifthly, that inequalities are just when otherwise advantages are destroyed in the name of justice. Lastly, that there are certain absolute humanitarian principles like autonomy, freedom or human dignity.

The suffix “ism” tends to mean a philosophy that advocates using its root term as a means of solving problems and leading the best possible life. For that reason, elitism means those who advocate choosing the elite or quality over quantity; socialism denotes using socialized means of production; egalitarianism indicates those who want to use equality as a universal tool for fixing and enhancing society.

In that definition, we have every aspect of modern Leftism. They want to create a Utopia through progress toward equality. They think this should be done by taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful. They believe in using the State to do this through Civil Rights programs.

Through that understanding, we can see that Leftists — liberals, communists, marxists, socialists, anarchists, libertarians — are all degrees of the same thing, namely the idea of equality being both a goal and a method of achieving the best possible civilization and lives, although uniquely they see a “perfect” Utopia as possible.

Let us then revisit the historical portion of the definition of Leftism from above:

The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.

In this we see how egalitarianism translates into reality: since we cannot make the unsuccessful more competent, we must penalize the successful, and have a strong gangster-style government to take their wealth and give it to the less competent. This creates a Darwinian death spiral but transfers power to the Leftist Regime.

Leftism consists of several sub-philosophies, all of which share a common goal of Utopia through progress of equality, which means that all Leftist philosophies are essentially the same, differing only in degree. On the mild side of Leftism, liberalism, libertarianism, and classical liberalism hide their real goal:

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

…Liberalism is derived from two related features of Western culture. The first is the West’s preoccupation with individuality, as compared to the emphasis in other civilizations on status, caste, and tradition. Throughout much of history, the individual has been submerged in and subordinate to his clan, tribe, ethnic group, or kingdom. Liberalism is the culmination of developments in Western society that produced a sense of the importance of human individuality, a liberation of the individual from complete subservience to the group, and a relaxation of the tight hold of custom, law, and authority. In this respect, liberalism stands for the emancipation of the individual. See also individualism.

Liberalism also derives from the practice of adversariality in European political and economic life, a process in which institutionalized competition—such as the competition between different political parties in electoral contests, between prosecution and defense in adversary procedure, or between different producers in a market economy (see monopoly and competition)—generates a dynamic social order. Adversarial systems have always been precarious, however, and it took a long time for the belief in adversariality to emerge from the more traditional view, traceable at least to Plato, that the state should be an organic structure, like a beehive, in which the different social classes cooperate by performing distinct yet complementary roles.

Individualism creates egalitarianism because no individual wants to be left behind or restricted in what they can do. As a result, they demand a utilitarian solution: everyone does whatever they want — small exceptions are made for crimes and blatant antisocial behavior — and decisions are made by choosing whatever is most popular.

This comes from the notion of the moral worth of the individual in individualism:

Individualism, political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.

If the individual has moral worth, then all individuals must be included and their choices supported, which naturally prohibits the type of cooperation necessary to create civilization. Individualism expresses itself through “rights” by which an individual can reject the need to uphold social standards, customs, and principles.

Although it was called by different terms, individualism arose from the Renaissance, in which “man is the measure of all things” became a replacement for classical ideas of social order. Instead of designing civilization as a structure, it was conceived as a container for individuals which sought to facilitate their desires.

The French Revolutionaries stated as much when they placed the individual at the center of their society, and made it the goal of that society to serve all individuals.

This inverts social order. Instead of having standards and rewarding those who meet them, we make people the standard, and assume that they can be motivated with external carrot/stick combinations like money and the threat of not having money. Over time this breaks down, and so societies turn toward socialism in order to keep their ideology intact.

We fight a war of ideas. The West adopted individualism, then egalitarianism, and implemented them in Leftism because as the most successful society on Earth, it had the wealth and power to take on a crazy notion and not have it fail immediately. Over the past centuries and especially past fifty years however, we have seen that it fails anyway.

For us to displace Leftism from the West, and nothing else will save us, we must get to the root of this dysfunction and remove the moldy old Renaissance™ and Enlightenment™ notions of equality from our thinking. This requires that we get over ourselves, but we have surmounted greater challenges in the past.

Read more from Amerika…

If Everything Is Going So Well, Why Are Europeans Drinking Themselves To Death?

Leftists take an early role in blaming circumstances and methods when people make bad decisions, instead of looking into their state of mind, intelligence, or moral character. This causes them to be oblivious to the causes of problems and instead to just make things worse with their solutions.

Like most of Europe and America, Scotland has an intoxicants problem. Apparently, many of its citizens and residents drink themselves into a stupor on a regular basis. Its Leftist government has a diagnosis: alcohol is too inexpensive.

From today it is illegal to sell booze for less than 50p per unit in Scotland – including shops, off-licences and supermarkets.

Prices have soared overnight as Edinburgh tries to tackle problems associated with cheap booze.

Studies show the long-awaited change will cut alcohol-related deaths by 392 in five years after the Scottish Government warned alcohol misuse costs the country around £3.6billion a year.

Instead of asking why people are so bored + desperate that they intoxicate themselves to incoherence, sort of like the same thing we have going here in America with box wine and opioids, government simply wants to make it harder to drink, figuring that this will solve the problem without having to figure out its roots.

We live in a time when looking at reality is taboo and people want to blame anything but the failure of Western civilization. However, happy people do not drink themselves to death, or pass out in public from opioid abuse, on a wide scale. There will always be some, but now we have many.

The same could be asked of other self-destructive behaviors. Why do we have so many school shootings now, despite guns being easier to get thirty years ago? Why is there so much vandalism? Why are our leaders so pathologically inclined toward destruction?

People despair because they realize that nothing they do will have an influence. Like a runaway machine without a driver, society just churns on, grinding all that is good and beautiful into dust and replacing it with ugly human blight. For many, this means that there is no point going on, and so they suicide through intoxication.

Read more from Amerika…

Is it Possible to Know Goodness without European History?

It’s an often repeated and battled about question for young people, and those young of mind. “Is it possible to be good without God?” And its various iterations.

Here Judeo-Boomer Dennis Prager demonstrates his 115 IQ with an infographic worthy of a Jordan Peterson debate. By the way, if you intend to start a YouTube channel, I suggest you watch as much PragerU as you can. His audience is mostly boomers, the content is easy to parrot, and if you are young, female, and remotely good looking you’ll get both the beta bucks and the boomertards who publicly claim they wish their daughters had role models like you, while watching for the YouTube alert to hope they can add something new to the yank bank.

And If you want to seem edgy forget Patreon and go MakerSupport (which is a good site, by the way, without sarcasm). For a conservative, MakerSupport it will make you seem too edgy for Patreon. If you want to be more mainstream, Patreon is safe as is pretty much everything else deplatforming the real right these days. Hell even Candace “I found Reagan on the road to Damascus” Owens got a public apology from Jack Dorsey for calling her “far-right”.

Here is the answer from a non-militant nearly life-long atheist: Yes. Yes, you can be good without God; yes, even if God does not exist, murder is (still) wrong.

I was an atheist for 37ish years and I was, for the most part, a pretty good person. This is typically a Prager-tier question to atheists in a futile display of boomer-autism to convince young people who have rejected by stench if not logic and history the contemporary religious scene that passes for “Judeo-Christianity.”

Most of my former fellow atheists were atheists because they didn’t like Christianity. I don’t blame them. I don’t like it either. I grew up around Evangelicals who genuinely believed things (frequent but not universal among them) such as:

  1. Scientists are lying about the age of the Earth, the Great Flood, the discovery of certain archaeological sites whose existence would conclusively prove not only the Bible but the Evangelical version. Some Evangelicals believe that dinosaurs were put there by the devil to confuse man.
  2. Scientists lie about stuff all the time, I trained in Geophysics as an undergrad and once had a professor tell me to pretend a mountain didn’t exist so my gravity data would match up with the model we were using. Think about that the next time Bill Nye talks about “climate change models”.
  3. Jews are God’s chosen people and the reason they keep getting kicked out of — well, everywhere they’ve ever been — is because of anti-semitism. I’ve heard Evangelicucks say “Jews are God’s barometer for evil. If someone like Hitler hates God’s chosen people, he hates, God and therefore goodness.” That’s some Hagee-tier rationalization going on there guys. Even if you believe Jews are God’s chosenites, does it follow that it’s always the other guys fault you get kicked out? If a woman goes on 109 dates with 109 guys and no one calls her back, the common denominator is her.
  4. Complex eschatology such as dispensationalism, millennialism, pre-millennial/post-millennial dispensationalism, the two witnesses being stuck down in Jerusalem, and “Biblical prophecy” coming to fulfillment in our lifetimes because Izrul, as John Hagee pronounces it.

Have some of Pastor Hagee at his absolute most Judeo-Boomer:

They really believe this stuff. He is not a fringe nut among American Christians.

In reality the primary cause of the rise of secularism among the west isn’t any goofy belief though, or iron clad paradox seen on Reddit or a logical presentation of science YouTube Skeptic.™ It’s the fact that the churches don’t actually mean anything anymore. Churches are not a home for strength and men you respect. They are the home of the concessionist. They are the place you go for warm feelings of childhood.

In their desire to shield their children (and let’s just be honest here, many of these Christian men, raised in the church and on the internet, are rather uncomfortable with physical sex as well) from “the world” they have constructed a sterile cultural bubble where Christians cannot survive.

When gay marriage was legalized in the US several years ago, one of my best friends, a devout memeer of his Baptist Church, and a layman who often helped out with things needing to be done, turned to me — the secular, single man, who enjoys amusing my married friends with disturbing stories of debauchery — turned to me and said, “I told pastor, that if he wanted to marry a gay couple in our church, I’d stand by him. I’d be proud to have a gay family member.”

Christians today lead nothing, they follow Caesar. They follow, and have followed for a very long time, because they are afraid of “the world” which does not belong to God. In fact, many of my Christian friends like to blame Hollywood, or the MSM, or celebrities, or politicians, academia, really anything they can, for the problems facing the country and the west.

They’ll blame everyone but the one group responsible: themselves.

In the 1970s Christian boomers retreated from the culture and left it to young Marxist culture-makers to bastardize and darken everything good about American and European culture. The fruits of those seeds were reaped in the 90s when The Ellen Show aired TV’s first lesbian kiss, when women began appearing in combat roles in action films, when the zeitgeist turned to feminism as cool. I remember watching MTV play women artists back to back to back to back all weekend one time to prove to radio programmers you could make money off female artists.

As if women had never sung before. But in the 90s my generation witnessed as our classmates: historical illiteracy and professional oppression were the parents of a little mulatto baby named Social “historical oppression” Justice. She has an even more temperamental brother coming of age called “Corporate Social Responsibility” watch out for that ingrate. He’s what happens when HR gets a Six-Sigma black belt.

Back to the question of goodness. We today debate goodness and morality not as if they were subjective. But as if they were a figment of the imagination of Descartes’ demon. Pascal’s Wager once made sense because the worldview of the people to whom he was speaking knew the difference between love and happiness. Today, we seem to have two categories of words related to morality: words that make GoodFeels and words that make BadFeels.

Ask an atheist if it’s possible to be “Good without God” and you’ll usually get snark, or if the atheist is out of college, an eye-roll and an “of course it is: is am good.”

But rather than ask the basic question “Good without God” why not ask a question that rebukes Descartes’ demonic scenario which can only be answered by the very Enlightened cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). And do not apply Pascal’s Wager to people who would rather take ten dollars today than twenty tomorrow. Just watch this regular blonde woman say she would change her opinion on weather preference for $55 US!

Religion today is fungible. It means little because it is a social club one joins to get ahead in life or to have people like yourself with whom to associate. It has no moral foundation.

But it once did.

So rather than address the tired question, “Can you be good without God,” ask, “Is it possible to know if another person is good without a socially agreed upon set of values?”

In more elegant terms: If one claims, “Man can be good without God” simply reply, “But how would you know if he is good without the reality of asking such a question in the shadow of more than a thousand years of European Civilization?”

Read more from Amerika…