Atheist Drivel





Edward E. Rochon




Shakespir EDITION



  • * * * *




Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir



Atheist Drivel

Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon




Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.


Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.






Some Other Works by the Author


[Axioms & Theorems: An Essay
Cubics: A Numbers Essay
EMF Banding Model
Ethereal Mea Culpa
Global Warming: An Essay
God & Square Roots
God & Square Roots II
Holographic TV: An Essay
The JU Engine
Pest Control: An Essay
Pollution Solution: An Essay
Pollution Soup Cook: An Essay
Polygon Calculus
Super Intelligence: An Essay]



Reading Material



  • * * * *





Table of Contents

Title Page


Chapter 1: Ayn Rand

Chapter 2: Noah’s Lark

Chapter 3: Friedrich Nietzsche

Chapter 4: The Four Horsemen

Chapter 5: The Fool

About the Author





Atheism, idolatry written large across the cosmos, continues its satanic mission to corrupt, delude, mislead, tyrannize, degrade man into an inhuman demon possessed vile affront to God and truth. What is this demonic possession? Why it is lies and trickery and endless appeals to lust through enticement and intimidation, through ridicule when force is insufficient and by force when cowardice, stupidity, confusion reaches its critical point.

Man forever fails to be righteous, forever fails to be faithful. Wisdom is the enemy of lust and lust will not listen to it. God cannot force righteousness as it belongs to man and forced morality is no morality at all. He cannot force faithfulness as forced faith is no faith. He can ram wisdom down the throat of detestable liars, the sword of truth circumcising the heart without consent.

Let us now go to the world of today and see how the veil of atheism works to corrupt the world through the wiles and deceptions of current and recent practitioners Back to Table of Content



Chapter 1: Ayn Rand

The Rand swindle spiel is founded upon the pillars of individualism, libertarianism and anti-collectivism as a gloss over and annotating all of her basic precepts. The foundation of her philosophical system was Positivism as outlined below:

Positivism s a philosophical theory stating that certain (“positive”) knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations. Thus, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, forms the exclusive source of all certain knowledge. Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this a posteriori knowledge.

Verified data (positive facts) received from the senses are known as empirical evidence; thus positivism is based on empiricism.

Positivism also holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws. Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected, as are metaphysics and theology. Although the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of western thought, the modern sense of the approach was formulated by the philosopher Auguste Comte in the early 19th century. Comte argued that, much as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so does society, and further developed positivism into a Religion of Humanity.

Wikipedia: Positivism

Rand modified this underlying theme with her own philosophy called Objectivism. Some points taken from Wikipedia: Objectivism:

Objectivism’s central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans’ metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

Rand’s overriding theme is political economy, the development of wealth through a money system using technology to advance this end. There is nothing bizarre or unusual about this. It is not revolutionary, contrary to reason nor biblical views. We must confess that our economy depends upon a commonwealth. For people to believe that their loyalties and duties do not entail respect for the happiness and well being of others is clearly seditious, disruptive and objectively immoral. You cheat your fellow citizens, no matter how you try to hide it behind libertarianism and nonsense. You violate the golden rule. Such a society will never prosper. Rand’s heroes and scoundrels, parasites upon the society they live off of. Yet, Ayn will twist it the other way around. Her robber baron heroes stole the work produced by others by immoral and often illegal means, not caring about the commonwealth and producing hatred and strife all around, that Rand would pass off as jealousy, or perhaps Nietzschean so called resentiment. Of course, amorality finds no problem in cruelty, selfishness and immorality in general, morality supposedly being a lie of weak men. So anything goes. You will never become strong unless you heal your infirmities. Preying on the weak makes you weak in the end and is the manifestation of weakness in the beginning.

Without having read her work in any but the most cursory of manner, she does not seem to be a doctrinaire materialist, admitting the existence of consciousness as apparently independent of matter. She gives no explanations as to its nature (in Wikipedia, anyway), though it is not divine as she is a committed atheist.

The name “Objectivism” derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one’s mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has. Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—“existentialism”—had already been taken.

We suppose she means that thought is a slave to the material world, otherwise the mind would be free to create subjective worlds. How feelings and indefinable concepts such as justice, beauty, love, ethics and such could possibly be objective (as they are not definable in any rational way) is inconsistent with the above extract. Her contention that subjectivity does not exist is without empirical foundation. Experience clearly demonstrates that it exists in my mind. I hear other people speak of it. I have no reason to doubt it as reason is perfectly consistent with it. We can be sure Rand has some twisted nonsense somewhere to refute subjectivity. I will rely on the reader to confirm what is plainly true, that subjectivity does exist. If not, the reader is an idiot and one must go on to write to rational minds.

According to Rand, consciousness possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be “disqualified” by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the “limits” of consciousness, as well as any claim to revelation, emotion or faith based belief.

Human consciousness possesses no such limit that anyone could possibly ever detect. Beyond the horizon is the notion of the beyond, and beyond that and so on. The fact they we may not be sure of what is there, or definitively do not know what is there, in no way limits the indefinable attribute of human consciousness. But surely the limited knowledge of man means a definable mind? Well, Rand rejects God and most men do not. In the image and likeness of God made he them. We must suppose God could expand man’s mind, fill him with knowledge and wisdom to whatever extent he pleases. As a transcendent God is omniscient, there can be no limitation on human perception. Of course Rand rejects God. Anne C. Heller in her biography of Rand: Ayn Rand and the World She Made has Rand opine that if God is omniscient, that would mean that man is stupid, and that is unacceptable to the hero worshiping young Ayn. Now that is objective thinking! Like hell it is. Man is stupid and that is the matter of it. God existing or not changes nothing there. Like all atheists, Rand’s religion is founded upon belief (superstition as they claim faith does not exist other than delusion), wishful thinking, stubborn refusal to accept any contrary evidence as this would limit her freedom. In fact atheism is simply idol worship, with the material world as one big idol, that mystically possesses animate powers just as the pagan idols of statues of old did.

Because of its view of concepts as “open-ended” classifications that go well beyond the characteristics included in their past or current definitions, Objectivist epistemology rejects the analytic-synthetic distinction as a false dichotomy and denies the possibility of a priori knowledge.

She does not care for Immanuel Kant. The whole matter and question of a priori is utterly irrelevant in philosophy. Such knowledge would of necessity be immediately present, immanent. It would of necessity conform to the perception of the world as epistemology, or at least, in no way be in contradiction to the world. How would the esthetics of a tree possibly contradict the tree’s existence or contradict anything, other than in Ayn’s view that the mind must be objective, lacking a soul, and immaterial notions such as that? Moreover, as we see the tree outside of our head, as well as inside in the mind’s eye, and since an immaterial mind is just that, we can think of consciousness outside of the brain without any logical contradiction. In point of fact, experience weighs heavily in favor of this. So all so called a priori knowledge would be immanent in the mind and world of necessity, needing no memory at birth to recall it. In fact, what is immaterial and a priori is eternal by definition, and the notion of memory is largely irrelevant to it.

What if we attack the eternal? We create ridiculous contradiction that refutes it. Each moment in perception is without extension or transition of time by definition. A point on the timeline has no extension, yet what is before us must be before us moment by moment in timeless suspension. It is eternal in the past and present and future. It must be, as things eternal do not disappear, though this does not mean they do not pass out of the immediate perception of the limited mind of man. Ha, ha, limited mind! Bear in mind that things past are still open to memory, prophecy and by objective truth be present in the background of existence, whether the mind holds them immediately in consciousness or not. Eternity is eternity is eternity. It is not caused, causes nothing as this would entail the changer changing in some way. How does eternal God have power? Power is transition by definition. If I can move a ball, God cannot because he is eternal? God is both eternal and transient in his power, as power is transient by definition. As transience and eternity exist on the timeline, so in the attributes of God.

Rand rejected “feeling” as sources of knowledge. Rand acknowledged the importance of emotion for human beings, but she maintained that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. “Emotions are not tools of cognition.“Rand also rejected all forms of faith or mysticism, terms that she used synonymously. She defined faith as “the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and reason.

A businessman had a bad feeling about a prospective enterprise with a certain man. He felt the man was a scoundrel, but could not pin his finger on why, so he made the deal. The man cheated him. This same thing happened several times. Finally, the man said he would never deal with any other man that gave him this unease, in spite of the fact that he could not precisely pin down what reasonable objections caused the feeling. What do we call a businessman who did not listen to his feelings after being burned a half dozen times? We would call him a moron. Experience not only affects the visual memory, auditory memory, linguistic event memory, but also the emotions. If only the feeling remains of some negative experience, is this irrational by that? Not if the feeling is pertinent. The pain of burns teaches us not to put the hand on the hot stove. We generally remember the other factors, but a feeling is sufficient to dissuade us unless conflicting data indicates otherwise. A man who imagines trouble before it happens is not necessarily wrong or irrational. If the imaginative process was largely inspired by emotions, what of it? It would be better to have the full panoply of memory available to be sure.

If a man dislikes a well paid endeavor because it depresses him, what of it? Perhaps his depression comes from chemical or environmental unknown factors that are bad for his health. He cannot quantify them, but that does not make them unreal. Maybe, it is aesthetically disagreeable. What is the point of making money that does not bring happiness? Are we starving? OK, we put up with things that we would otherwise not put up with, as hunger also makes us unhappy. Emotions should be listened to. It does not follow that they are irrational as a matter of form. And her dumbass heroes such as Howard Roark have sentiments that are hardly rational as in logic that makes them scorn wealth and status, the idiot Ayn fails to note.

Rand rejected the traditional rationalist/empiricist dichotomy, arguing that it embodies a false alternative: conceptually-based knowledge independent of perception (rationalism) versus perceptually-based knowledge independent of concepts (empiricism). Rand argued that neither is possible because the senses provide the material of knowledge while conceptual processing is also needed to establish knowable propositions.

Sounds like Kant rephrased. If logic is the result of natural laws and logic is the way of life, man is a slave to logic as dictated by circumstances. Moreover, man as a natural animal cannot escape nature. He has no individuality other than random genetic variations as in the case of cats, dogs and other animals. If man is not free to be subjective, as this is impossible by Rand’s thinking, his freedom of action is nonsense, entirely entailed by nature. Irrationality is his only freedom, but that is the result of natural attributes and a false, delusory freedom. Rand rejects supernatural forces that come from a God that transcends nature and has the power to allow his image and likeness to transcend nature. Rand mealymouths around this by rejecting both rationalism and materialism while kowtowing to both. Faith and supernatural perception of truth, hovering outside of the material universe by it immaterial nature, this is what makes men free agents.

Her rejection of faith is without rational foundation. Her assertion that faith is necessarily irrational is without foundation, unless by irrational, means that it does not use defined parameters to achieve its goal. Reason cannot exclude emotions as valid factors in determining life goals, faith and conviction in determining life goals. Rand is no philosopher. No philosopher can possibly accept empiricism as a foundation of philosophy, since empiricism itself invalidates empiricism. It can never be conclusively proven that factors outside of perception are at work. Data is useless without rational analysis and reason is not empirical. A life of action is foolish without good form. Action is a given in life. It is understood. It is good form and philosophy, both natural and metaphysical that keep our actions on track. Rand realizes this but is caught up in her narcissistic, selfish, materially motivated world. By the way, her rejection of materialism is pointless, since with the rejection of supernatural agency, materialism must be the result, or an equivalent idealist slavery, where idealism is equated with nature. In effect, idealism and materialism refer to the same thing.

Her work indicates that she is addicted to sadomasochistic sexual ideation. Somehow bondage and the infliction of bondage and cruelty are the apex of individualism. While she mealymouths around it, she is a materialist. It is impossible for materialism to produce anything that could be called individualism. She and her characters such as Howard Roark are people utterly controlled by lust, the ultimate defeat of the individual to self-destructive abnegation of health, truth, ethics or anything decent. All nobility of character comes from the immaterial world. Filth worship produces filth. The outrage of nobility of blood has always contributed to human degradation, slavery and evil of every sort. In her book: Atlas Shrugged we see that Ayn is a union girl when it suits her, her elitist scumbag parasite elitism. She believes the sole function of the state is to protect individuals but deems taxation should be voluntary. What do you call someone who receives a benefit yet recognizes no obligation to support that benefit? You call her a parasite. Miss Rand is a parasite. Her work contributes to the dysfunction of society. Her fat cats controlling the world through eye nods at associations and clubs are not one wit different from commissars in committee.

In business if you are an honest broker, you appeal to the interest of your customer. You consider the interests of others. If you are a thief and a liar, you merely pretend to care about the interests of others. An economy is a commonwealth no matter what lowlifes such as Ayn Rand tells you. And she does tell you that. Her crap about honesty and integrity is just that. Selfishness is indifference to at best, and malicious scorn and exploitation of others at worst. Heller has one of Rand’s characters say she approves of totalitarian methods but not their goal. You see the selfishness and her evil manifest here. Rand passes herself off as a beacon of ethics against hypocrites. Her ethics are fraud and hypocrisy.

She extols the untermensch called superman by Nietzsche. The devout man aspires to the omniscience, omnipotence and perfection of God. The untermensch such as Rand crawls in the filth of materialism and calls herself noble. She not only does not care about others, she does not care about herself. Let us speak of her in the present tense, as many believe in the immortal soul. It is lust for fame, fortune, power over men’s minds by lying nonsense. She is evil. She and all like her would turn the world into a junkyard dog culture. When nobody cares or pretends to care for the common good, nothing but ruination arrives, every man for himself and all sucked into a whirlwind of self-destructive pathos. Savagery returns in spades. Better hypocrisy than this. Hypocrites are wiser than idiots such as Rand. And Rand is a hypocrite in spite of that, a hypocrite of amorality and evil passed off as morality and good. She is just a brazen and stupid hypocrite. Give me the old fashioned hypocrite of truth and justice outright, please. At least they do not insult us to our face, saying up is down, left is right, lie is truth, bad is good, selfishness is selflessness. Yes, you see, only by being selfish do we care for our society and country. Bah!

She blabs about the adventurous risk taker. A program on cable television (The Men Who Built America; History Channel) recorded the history of the robber barons of the nineteenth century. We have Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump and Vegas casino owners talking about how risk taking is the mark of the successful entrepreneur. They are commenting upon John D. Rockefeller. The narration plainly states that wildcat drilling was not to Rockefeller’s taste. That is why he focused on refineries and distribution. This goes over Trump’s, Fiorina’s heads, if in fact they watched the documentary before commenting upon it. Rockefeller clearly squelched competition whenever possible because it entails excessive risk. In spite of this, we hear how risk taking made Rockefeller rich. J. P. Morgan screwed up in backing Edison in the electricity war. His father told him he was an idiot for taking such risks. Morgan lost out, but used his father’s great wealth and his own contribution to that wealth to pressure Westinghouse to sell out to him by threats of initiating lawsuits that would bankrupt Westinghouse. Westinghouse agreed to sell out. Why did Morgan do this? Fixing the game minimizes risk. Why did Westinghouse cave in? Too risky to risk losing his fortune. Yet, we have Trump and Fiorina blabbing about risk. Uncle Sam has paid for Donald Trump’s risk taking in gambling to a large extent. He and George Soros use tax dodges to get rich in spite of losses. Yet risk taking is the answer to success? Minimizing risk taking is the answer to success. Why does the mob fix horse races? to minimize risk. That is risky only if you get caught. Why do plutocrats and large corporations bribe government? To minimize risk of losses.

Winning wars is not about risk taking but about minimizing risk. George Patton was a vainglorious fool who craved victory over life. He loved war and so showed some competence in it by studying it. At heart he was a coward, a war loving murderer and immoral lout. He was not the refined character he pretended to be. He broke just about every bone in his body because he was a fool. Fools are losers. He did not win the battle for France on his own. Montgomery held down the bulk of the German Army, that covered the short route to the Rhine. Very few organized units of Germans were left to oppose his wheeling motion. When he came to German fortified positions, he had a hard time dislodging them. Most of the fighting in North Africa was done by the British. The Germans were in a bad position in Sicily. He talked about getting the other dumb bastard to die for his country, yet fantasized about dying in battle instead of at home in bed of old age and in peace without any suffering as sensible people would prefer. He was motivated by blood lust, a slave to evil passions and beliefs. Save the West from the barbarian hordes of Asia? George you are the hordes of Asia in person.

Getting back to Rand, she is a literary whore for fat cats. Anne C. Heller claims that Ayn Rand had many people help her succeed in her youth. But Miss Egoist denied getting any help, not conducive to her rugged individualism mystique. Heller is likely telling the truth. She was a pretentious fraud who paid her bills by and through fraud. Her attacks on the supernatural and divinity are inane, irrational, contemptible and motivated by greed, vanity and lust. Her loathsome skyscraper infatuation is twisted perversion of the bug colony sort. The narrow needle skyscraper is a waste of money, real estate and inconvenient. Architects would better serve New York by building cube buildings. Most people in large buildings have no access to windows anyway. Cube buildings piping down sunlight through light guides, atriums in the center would be more efficient use of space. Underground parking garages would be more extensive and efficient. It would simplify not complicate sewage and power distribution. But oh, such buildings are not sexy, phallic, sword thrusting. Screw heathen eroticism, give me wisdom and life, sir. The City of God, the City of God. But jackasses prefer Gotham and darkness and Whore Babylon’s towers in insolent effrontery to God.

Of course, Rand is a gold bug. Only the gold standard can save us. Money is the source of all good. Spoken like the daughter of usurer Jews. Heller says she admires Aristotle. I wonder what she thought of his view that usury was parasitism? In spite of what Tom Jefferson and Ron Paul say, money has never been anything other than a promise to pay. Pay what? Pay in goods in services in exchange for the gold that you acquired elsewhere. Its intrinsic value was never great. Jewelry is mere trash of vanity of no importance to the life of man. Gold has more value today than in the past. Gold does and has wildly shifted in price. It is only the average that has stayed fairly stable. On the average a return of 10% on the stockmarket means little if the insiders make 100%, a large percentage of minor investors break even, and an unfortunate significant minority goes bust or only retains a mere fraction of their principle. But hey, it averages out to 10%. In fact, money is and has been nothing but trouble, justified only in that its aids liquidity for investment efficiently. Unfortunately, it also aids rapid divestment resulting in panics, economic turbulence. Absolute wealth is what matters. Money is relative wealth only, of no intrinsic value to speak of, and very troublesome. Paper money works just fine. Stability of state office and function determines stability of any currency. Gold will fluctuate wildly in times of trouble, swindles and so on.

Money demands central banks to work at peak efficiency. This is as natural as water flowing down hill. We have the bank scams, panics and so on. The real culprit in modern finance is compound interest on loans. This is legalized theft that unbalances the stability of society. To be sure, moron sex pervert Ayn is only interested in thrills. How boring stability is, and it is surely collectivist! In fact, the state has always been the guarantor of individual liberty such as it has existed. It is never the state but the nation’s people that corrupt society. Ethnicity is the most overbearing of all totalitarian hegemony. Communism wants the state to wither away, but must perforce use the state to do this. Rousseau, Jefferson and the rest push this nonsense. The function of the state in fascism is to promote the people, das volk, rather than the generation of wealth in conformism to divine ordinance.

The sole function of the state from the beginning was the generation of wealth. People are all but incapable of maintaining law and order without significant and advancing wealth generation. We have the ignoble aristocratic thieves, the pretentious priests, the god-king villains to rob and corrupt. No matter, the sole function of the state is the generation of wealth as required by logic and God’s ordinance to subdue nature and to prosper. Only the human family is an organic unit ordained by God. The nations are Whore Babylon shit splatter. Rand, being a pretentious parasite, cannot bear anyone being given credit for wealth creation than her psychotic sociopath heroes. Hero worship is and always has been the vice of the corrupt. They aspire to their delusions and must perforce find exemplars. How disgusting that the Lincoln Memorial has the word ‘temple’ in its dedication. IN GOD WE TRUST?

There is no individualism but that founded upon the image and likeness of God. Without a supernatural soul, man must be a slave to the dictates of the material world. This is so blatantly true as to weary the intellect to waste time supporting this. This supernatural source emanates from God. Now God covers endless territory, and endless vistas for versatile and multifoliate diversity of human energies. Christ rose for this rose, and no evil bug colony little Jew, fantasizing about willowy tall blonde English roses will replace the glory of that with her shame. Yes, that was the fantasy woman of Ayn Rand, if not always English, in that general mode, a mode she bore no resemblance too. What a pathetic girl! Back to Table of Content



Chapter 2: Noah’s Lark

Science versus faith, drivel versus quivocal (what, no une-?), Waterworld Kevin Costner style, or is that Russell Crowe? And Noah sent out a crow (raven: big crow, same thing) to see if the water had abated. Now Russell Crowe is part Maori, great sea people who lived and sailed long periods. He is from New Zealand, way out there in the big ocean. He is a Brit by heritage, great sea people with a big fleet and empire in past times. Is it just coincidence that Crowe is also Master and Commander and Noah in the movies? Quoth the raven, “Ever so.” Or is it?

We now turn to the faith versus science: ark-around-the-clock debate. Where did the water come from? All those animals could not possibly fit into the ark, blah, blah, blah. Look at the evidence of evolution. We can play along with this and do the natural science thing, assuming God is not above the physical. What do I mean?

Water: He gets it from anywhere he pleases, the Solar System, converts hydrogen and oxygen on the earth or from the Sun or anywhere he pleases to flood the earth. Afterwards, he puts it back where it came from.

Animals: Tell where in the Bible it says that God will never make another animal? Do not bother looking. So he made some more animals after the flood to fill up Australia, etc. Tell me where in the Bible God could not manipulate the genes of a proto-dog or proto-wolf to make all canines. Do not waste your time looking. Look at the great variety of dogs we have made. Though all interbreedable, they are more diverse than the cat family of lions, tigers, bobcats, cheetahs and so on, at least in shape. And changing their semen and eggs by margins of differentiation is surely not beyond the All Mighty. Oh, you can’t prove that. I don’t have to prove it, moron. You are the one blabbing about proof that you do not have. If you put this stuff into a super race of ET’s you would not blink, idiot.

Actually, there does seem to be enough water in the substrate of the world to cause the flood. Noah may have chosen immature animals, and there is no biblical proof that evolution by design is not within the genomes of animals. And natural selection is certainly reasonable to favor one characteristic over another, but not in the ludicrous Darwinian muck to apes without intelligence mode. Back to Table of Content



Chapter 3: Friedrich Nietzsche

What does Nietzsche believe, if the word has any meaning to the man who rejects faith? We suppose what are his superstitions? The great cycle of life is full front in his scheme. Unlike the Hindu, he revels in going around and around. Exactly what he thought about reincarnation is up for grabs. This man is an alien presence in Western life, this fool who would save us from decadence. He blabs about fidelity and has none being an immoralist, called by him amorality. He is suspicious of truth, asserts benefits to self-deception, obviously has no qualms about lying to get what his subhuman soul wants, regardless of whether the lies are ethically justified. Of course not, he is amoral to cloak immoral behavior. He scorns the value of complete human union between man and woman, the very definition of human in completeness, so his syphilitic decline from prostitution to fulfill his subhuman destiny is not surprising. He never really comes off as believing his ruthless nonsense about pain the source of all higher cultures. How many self-proclaimed adherents to Christ would take a kick to the head to save a horse from the whip? And risk legal complication if a fight broke out with the owner over the matter?

He claims Christianity is nihilism, yet he is the nihilist. He claims wishing to avoid suffering is cowardice, and cowardly embraces inanity, cyclical depravity, a world of torment punctuated by meaningless cheap thrills. What is the point of achieving anything if only to go round and round in a meaningless sadomasochistic whirl? Well, that is just it according to him. He has proven to no one that God is dead by bravura courage of affirmative self-abnegation. He condemns mercy and pity, and has some idiot called Zarathustra do his great mission to inform us all that life is cruel and meaningless, so get happy. If you deny this you are a coward. On what proof? Proof, spoof, untermensch heroic idiocy! Who needs proof to devote your wretched existence to garbage? And when are we going to be reborn again? And why can we not opt out to nirvana?

Now this Jesus promised paradise on earth and in the body and for all time. People are horrified at his cruel passion. Why? Well, when human depravity makes the world fall into calamity, what you get is bloodshed, pain and cruelty. We see a message of this and a mark of compassion. The Buddha would reincarnate without a soul. The body rots. There is nothing to return. It is simply nihilism through non-existence no matter what those Buddhist idiots say. No joy could come of this. They rob themselves of hope of salvation. The Hindu uses it all to justify an evil caste system. The elite abhors matter, and lives the easiest and best life off the backs of the masses that they have deluded with lies. This is sin and folly. Moreover, Christ knew he would rise in the flesh, was God anyway, acted out of compassion to save others from the nihilism of lust that enslaves men’s minds. How is this nihilism, if only pitiable because of the passion and the suffering of men that made it the atonement to life? It is the opposite of nihilism. That a pack of fools call this German moron a genius of great incite is repulsive. Most of his adages are nonsense. He does make a few good points from time to time. The Greco-Roman world of his fancy was decadent on both the Dionysian side and the Apollonian side. Lechery and lies are not virtues to anyone but fools. The Greeks calling themselves the children of light (Hellenes) is an insult to truth, these benighted souls. Any light found in them is the burning of hellfire in corrupt and evil souls.

This degenerate and evil presence in the heart of Europe has caused no good to arise, only evil accentuated. Along with his fellow German degenerate, Oswald Spengler, they are the defective, diseased heart, the epitome of what decadence there is in the West. Herr Hitler, kowtowing to the dead kraut, mocked at by Spengler for being a pretender to greatness, Oswald not big on racism and antisemitism, Spengler did his usual annoying crap till his diseased heart gave out. The great savior of the West, Hitler, preferred Islam to Christianity, planned the total destruction of his people, brought on by his evil action. His great pagan SS heroes surrendered en masse while some millions of Frauen und Fraulein were raped by Asiatic hordes to the glee of Stalin, the great man so admired by the Führer. So much for regenerate man. I believe ‘degenerate’ Americans would have made a better portrayal of the Red Cross Knight, being more inclined to Christianity as they are.

But then Nietzsche was a good European so what of it? And Ayn Rand was very fond of sadomasochistic rape, although she probably, undoubtedly preferred Teutonic SS men to Mongols, too much of the stench of Russia, and hey no blond beast is perfect. After the rape, her razor sharp logic would doubtless steal a knight from Herr Himmler’s corral. To be sure, she must condemn Nazi collectivism, a lot of crap Himmler and Hitler used for the own superman greed. And by the way, true individual integrity is not extinguishable by outside physical forces.

The only good thing you can say about Friedrich is that he gave all the appearance of great hypocrisy. Is that good? Well, if your idea of higher culture is cruelty, heroism is nihilism called affirmation of what we suppose is supposed to be life, bearing the onus of syphilitic brain as a moderating factor, being a hypocrite is not such a bad thing. Perhaps we should give him a few more centuries before B.N. and A.N. become the norm (Before and After Nietzsche.) Back to Table of Content



Chapter 4: The Four Horsemen

Richard Dawkins: Idiot, liar Dawkins is outraged by Theism. Look at all the crimes committed in the name of religion. Look at the mass murderer YAHWEH who drowned all those people, killed that poor guy for steadying the Ark of the Covenant, ordered a genocidal war against the Canaanites and was angry when the Jews did not completely kill off the indigenous folks.

Mr. Dawkins uses his brilliant logic to refute God. If God is omniscient, then all things must happen exactly as they must happen, and God cannot change that, so God is powerless to change anything. What kind of omniscience is that? It is impotence.

Well, Richard, if all is ordained eternally, then nothing happens by cause and effect, since what is caused is by that very fact not eternal. Eternity is caused by nothing and causes nothing. For to cause something is to do something by the causing agent as well as the agent affected. And the flow of history by eternal moments is not possible given all events are eternally ordained, as what is eternal cannot be caused, and no so called preceding eternal event could cause anything. Of course, in temporal time, we see that preceding events must in some degree cause the following event. Number one, the preceding event must remove itself (be removed: passive voice) to allow the following event to come to be in the inertial framework that it manifests itself in. And one billiard ball must move to allow another ball to take the same position on the table, and the table must itself be changing. We perceive (by experimentation and expansion and contraction of doors and such to the eye) its atoms are moving from moment to moment (Brownian motion); it’s size varies minutely with minute changes in temperature, and so on. It is a different pool table from moment to moment than it was prior to and after each moment.

Dawkins would challenge God to a trial. If you are omniscient change history, but if you do, then your omniscience is false. Either way, what God would have foreseen came out according to plan. No, that is not what is meant, according to Dawkins. You do not mean anything, Richard. You are a moron who thinks himself clever. How does God kowtowing to your challenges make him omnipotent and omniscient? But if he does answer your challenge, that was also foreordained, and his omniscience and liberty are confirmed.

Would it not be strange that mere figments of God’s power and wisdom, such as Dawkins and myself could do such as picking up a pencil and putting it down on another part of our desk, and God could not because it was foreordained that the pencil is where it is? The fact that God is eternal, does not exclude him from the same transient power that Dawkins possesses. And what is power, anyway? Is not power the power to do something, causation and resulting effect? Yes, it is. So there is no power without transition. The definition of power is eternal (the word, the idea of it), but power must be transitional. But somehow Dawkins seems to think that God’s omniscience and omnipotence make him incapable of doing the simplest of things and knowing these simple things.

Get it straight, eternity does not enslave eternity, God is eternal life. What he is and wants must be one with what is. Nothing causes God to do anything. He is a slave to nothing. He foreordains accepting a Dawkins challenge to change something or not. In either case, it cannot possibly enslave his will. Dawkins plays with words. What is is what is. Challenge or not, that is how it comes out. But idiot Richard protests that is not what he means. You do not mean anything, moron, other than to confuse people by lies and trickery. I suggest the reader carefully examine the matter in his own mind if still confused by what the point (pointlessness) of Dawkins is and why it is nonsense. One last time, Dick, if history is eternally ordained, then so is God. So nothing can bind or enslave God. How could it? We must perforce conclude that the ordinance of eternal foreordained foreknowledge of history and God’s will on that matter are one and the same. Being so, it does not enslave God, as what occurs is exactly what God desires. What is is what is truth. God is and is also truth. His eternal nature cannot be moved, bound. To say God is limited by his own dictates, if so, is not slavery. If the first party makes a promise to the second party, his commitment to his own word is not slavery, that word freely given in contractual obligation. And unlike men, God is not hemmed in by fear of poverty, death, threats of violence, fear of making mistakes, or any of the things that bind man in his mortal body, that might impel him to make a contract he would rather not, though agreed to by him all the same.

We must conclude that the foreordained course of history is one and the same with the eternal liberty of God. God cannot be a slave to what he knows. That Dawkins cannot understand this proves nothing. Who can understand the infinite, the eternal existence that has no causation? If you say that things are because they are, this is tautology, and using the word “cause”, as in be-cause, in a different sense than in physics and usual speech. Be, being simply existing to be sure, cause is causation of some kind to be sure. Because is just that things are what they are, and that is a different sense of causation. Why does English do this? Humph!

Dawkins and his ilk view our bodies as part of a vast whole. Our minds seem to be will o’ the wisp, quite irrationally. Because, if not, we would have to consider some vast cosmic mind that sounds suspiciously like God.

There are no immaterial ideas as there is only matter, according to them. Names are merely associations. Plato rightly and effectively refuted this nonsense long ago. It is ideas that we convey to each other, not a random group of associations.

What any child can understand with perfect logical clarity, people like Dawkins cannot. The idea of an elephant is not the elephant, not the picture of the elephant, not the word for elephant that is synonymous in English and Chinese but looks quite different in appearance on paper. The word that appears on your computer monitor that looks like the word in your book is not the same. The monitor uses no ink; it is not made of paper. It is the immaterial idea that relates these things, one idea that is omnipresent in association to all of these manifestations of that idea.

Dawkins claims that this is mere association. Does the concept of name exist at all? Surely, it does. Is the association between elephant and comb the same association of the mind, since they differ in concept? Surely not. They are different by definition and by immediate cognition and so by logic. But mumbo-jumbo superstitious nonsense somehow says ideas are not real in their own nature. And we are superstitious because Dawkins says so for affirming the blatantly obvious. A compulsive lying atheist cannot bear to think of any eternal standards of truth, being inimical to lying, delusion, self-delusion and the deluding of others. Plato attacked this notion as rascality by Sophists, and he was right. These who care nothing for truth but only winning the argument! Well, hypocrisy is pandemic; the crooked judge extols justice. Plato lies through his teeth to justify his wretched Republic, to justify his elitism, to justify his useless rambling about philosophy, more dangerous than the sybaritic debauchery of sexual lechery and drunkenness that he condemned. Socrates sneered at Sophists and never failed to get free food and drink when offered. In old age, he played the hypocrite martyr at the expense of justice for his vainglorious ambitions and to put an early end to his waning life. Leave the field to his pagan, sybaritic, lying lover, Aristophanes, to produce his hypocrite lascivious plays, all in the name of peace and love and so on. What vileness. Socrates liked to hear himself talk and cared no more of truth than his Sophists. We have hypocrites on the left and hypocrites on the right. It is the same game of media whores pointing fingers at each other and calling each other media whores. The left and right grab their ill-gotten gains, plunder and neglect duties, and point accusatory fingers at each other. The Satanic swindle goes on and on until the light of truth and God’s wrath puts an end to it. God has his purpose and we are not fit to condemn him however much our confusion and anger resents it. OK.

Dawkins is outraged at religious fraud. Commie scientist Ivan Pavlov, ex-Russian Orthodox Church seminarian says just about everybody is an atheist in the seminary after looking at all the fraud and swindles. Dawkins’ pal Hitchens mentions stories of the late Billy Graham admitting that he was an atheist humbug. So we admit that atheists are capable of hypocrisy, excluding Hitchens and Dawkins of course. Maybe the phony atheists with no fear of God have penetrated religion and ruthlessly appropriated the name of God to their evil purposes. After all, Richard, you have told us how stupid people who believe in God are. How could these bumpkins possibly control the wealth and great social power of organized religion? Perhaps, if scumbag atheists stayed out of religion, things would not be so bad?

And we are all pawns of nature. Why are you outraged Richard? The thieving seagull is what it is, the jackal rips open the belly of its prey while still alive because that is what jackals are and do. We have the atheist fraud Mark Twain condemning acquaintances, and then opining that it is their nature, so why condemn them? Well, it is Twain’s nature to condemn what he does not believe in, for without conscience, morality is lunacy, and that conscience must be at liberty or be nothing. I am angry at you because I know otherwise. Your mother’s umbilical cord around your neck at birth does not justify you. Your limited abilities is not what makes you stupid. It is your willful immorality that cannot bear the truth. You, by your standards, have no justice in condemning me. By mine, I am vindicated in condemning you.

I hear some sociopathic doctor opine that sociopaths have no amygdala ethics. Their amygdala does not react when immoral actions happen. That makes them amoral. How about, people’s amygdalas do not flare up in synaptic outburst because they are selfish lusting scoundrels who have burned their consciences out for the sake of lust? But, no, this cannot possibly be. The depressed patient is suffering from insomnia, indigestion, joint pain from inflammation, irritability and anger management oscillating with listlessness. He needs Prozac. He cannot snap out of it by figuring out how to get a good night’s sleep, use Tai Chi or exercise to ease his joint problems, change his diet to ease his poor digestion. Might a good night’s sleep and less joint pain produce better digestion by default, less irritation and anger and listlessness? How about a constitutional walk in the park, a cup of coffee at the Starbucks across from the park to stave off listlessness. How about some aerobic exercise to pick up your vim, but not too much to run you down? How about avoiding the vicious cycle of drinking to ease the blues? Better to risk hyperactivity with Starbucks brews to the extent you can stand it? How about evidence that coffee drinkers suffer less from depression? Now how could that be, stimulants merely counteracting listlessness? To be sure, coffee addiction is a threat. It will not work after a while if drowning yourself in it. Cocaine the next step? How about some sensible middle ground? Use common sense and snap out of it by deliberate intent rather than lacing your body with fluorine laced Prozac to produce passivity?

How about these physical problems cause the depression and not the depression the problem? How about indifferent emotional response is the mark of sociopaths, and not sociopathic behavior the mark of muted synaptic activity in the amygdala? But, no, up must be down, left made right. But, wait, if I spin around my left is now right, right? Works for position but not ethics and truth. Depressing problems likely cause the symptoms or vice versa. Snap out of it and dump the crap Prozac whose effectiveness is highly suspect, and whose negative effect on instigating suicide is even suspect. And people snap out of depression on their own, so what does coincidental consumption of Prozac prove? And people who give up on solving their own problems, and throw their problems on the big people, like little children having their boo-boos kissed, get a placebo high by this manner. Get the fluorine out of the equation, asshole. Screw the barbaric, quack, ECT. It is just more placebo giving up, impaired memory and nothing else. The testimony of fools changes nothing.

But doctors are pals of Doctor Dawkins. The old boys must stick together. Income from degrees is absolutely mandatory. Might you somehow figure out some way of using your degree honestly? Oh, that is too hard, too religiously ethical bunk junk stuff. Who cares? Atheist adherents are just like religious atheists. I mean it is all relative. It is all proven by Einstein.

Just what does cynicism and hypocrisy have to do with the existence or non-existence of God? The patriarchal religions (Catholicism, various Orthodox) anti-Christ. One simple instruction to call no man your father, but God alone, is too hard for some one billion idiot lackadaisical adherents. Martin Luther was a Papist fraud and Jean Calvin too. What do they not understand about wipe the dust from the feet of the unbelieving door sill? Why is Calvin making himself the Poop of Geneva (Poop and Pope are one), and condemning people to hell without recourse, absolutely anti-Christ, too hard to understand? What Christians? What does Judaism (sons of perdition by profession of Christ) and Islam have to do with Europe and the West? Nothing, enemies.

You see, the doctor blabbing about sociopaths and writing the tests to determine them is a sociopath. And the fraud that sociopaths are amoral is merely immoral rubbish. Amorality is inconsistent with any reasonable notion of ethics. It is excluded as devious misdirection of truth, a blatant lie to excuse evil. Ever notice how amoralists always take the ‘moral’ high ground to justify their drivel? At least they are not hypocrites, they claim. They have no problem lying at will to anyone as lust requires (not fraud and hypocrisy?) They will justify taking advantage of people by claiming it teaches those people a lesson. It is their own fault for being stupid, etc. To be sure, we must strive to be wise, yet thieves and murderers are still criminals. What about God? Without God, you would not be here. God sees evil before it happens; sociopaths do not and simply excuse themselves. God sees the big picture, does not need your money, can make you do what he wants without tricking you. A little pain now may save you from hellfire tomorrow. God can actually justify the excuses made by sociopaths when God makes them. Sociopaths cannot justify them. They are stupid, unprincipled liars making excuses for themselves. The Electric Chair is worthy of them. Who is smart enough to tell God that he is wrong?

Does not the universe Dawkins lives in produce all these evils on its own, aimlessly according to Dawkins? But Dawkins has no problem blaming a God he denies has existence to suit his purpose. He is stupid and cannot believe anyone wiser than himself except marginally perhaps. In fact, Dawkins is manifestly evil. He is a fraud and slanderer, though he will call me the same. We all have problems with evil and God’s will. It is a tough one, but we have no interest in this evil God, no reason to believe, nor proof to support it but our own ignorance. Why not worship God and condemn Dawkins? Oh, the mindless existential drivel. “Can’t you see the timeless wind turning all to dust?” says the Camus fool (paraphrase)? Can’t you see the timeless wind making your dust meaningless, answering nothing, while the soul knows nothing of dust but only your lying lust to justify your vices by pointing out vices of others? We suppose not. Oh, and Camus denied being an Existentialist. Well, why not? Who wants association with the one-eyed moron, Jean-Paul Sartre, and his feminist sexist pig, douche bag whore of witch girlfriend?

Sorry morons, the dung beetle dirt ball we are what we do nonsense will not do. We do what we are, and decide what we do by ethics and wisdom, or failing that, by lack of ethics and ignorance. You’re all full of shit. From filth you come by your own assertion, and filth you are, but of the metaphorical sense. Man is mind. His body is what he has been given for whatever reason, perhaps to encourage him to humility (humility, humus, earth, dirt, filth), a pun? We know nothing of life other than through consciousness of mind.

Penn Jillette: The juggler loves to juggle his lies, giggle his way to fraud by making gigglers giggle in sympathetic stupidity to his jiggling and wiggling of words before his stupid audience of fools. Now Mr. Jillette is an exalted Libertarian that sets him apart from the collectivist bug colony crowd in his own conceit. Being an atheist, a slave to nature by birth by his own standards and thoroughly dominated by his own lust, he is simply a bug in nature worshiping hell.

Righteous men demand justice; criminals and knaves cry for freedom along with the convicts on death row. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Screw liberty, justice; screw equality, justice; screw fraternity, justice. If justice demands liberty, let it be, if not, let restraints apply according to the need. If justice demands unequal treatment according to the case, let it be. It is unfair to treat differing circumstances the same way just because both are humans or whatever race, sex, age or situation. If justice demands equal treatment, so be it. As for fraternity, has there ever been a brotherhood of anything that has not turned into a cabal, a criminal conspiracy against God and man? Not that I am aware of. Between every man and every other man must mediate the hand of God. One father makes you brothers. The nations are loathsome, your clubs and parties despicable.

His notion that a commonwealth can exist without ongoing commitment to group effort, requiring continual abeyance of momentary desires, is nonsense. Freedom does not matter in the end anyway. Health, justice and peace are the fulfillment of noble desires. All else is base. Who needs freedom to be a fool in stubbornness? Utter nonsense. Who needs freedom to starve, die, fight like a wharf rat in the rat race? Why live in loneliness and isolation other than for integrity? What is the integrity of freedom to cheat, murder, sabotage, envy, be a fool, betray? It is all garbage, and this is the holy grail of idiots. But brave Penn is superior to mere mortals, braving the existential wind and cruel sun to tan his Marlboro Man persona without any particular need for cigarettes. We poor weaklings, leaning on God, helpmates and truth and wisdom. Oh no, truth is slavery, wisdom compels you behave slavishly, other than what lust and folly demands. Fools rush in where angels dare to tread. Angels are not atheists; they must be bad or delusion or something.

And hey, I (Penn) am a juggler and magician and comedian. Who knows more about wiles and clever self-promotion than me? Years of reading audiences, and what fun in manipulating them to my freedom loving passion! I did not vote for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is Bill’s wife, a man who loves sexual freedom by whatever means. And he never has to worry about the restrictions of prison due to blackmail, extortion and forever hiding behind the right wing conspiracy dodge. Bill Cosby, Bill Snosby, opines Bill. I may have black bastards and am still white bread and Southern Fried Chicken. This chicken knows how to chicken trot. The Monica blue dress crap, hey, nobody cares about that. I got off with a slap. Serves me right to be more careful.

The lesser of evils? There is no lesser, simply less painful to some than others. That was Penn’s spiel, but Donald screwed him on TV, so we must make compromises in our Libertarian integrity. Trump gets more flack, is funnier to dump on, probably never wanted to be Prez anyway, just a publicity dodge. Look how that Carson guy made out by running for President. One step, two step, and maybe avoid jail, or a fake assassination. Impeach him before he won; impeach before he took office; impeach for any flimsy excuse. Russians offer info on the Hillary, and none is given to both son and son-in-law. Sound like a setup? Some Trump Tower in Russia never built? Where is the leverage in that and before he was elected and not illegal anyway, except by the impeach no matter what scoundrels. Even if he lost, why not let the deal go through? It’s jobs and money for Russia? Sound like a setup?

Is Vlad the Spy the biggest crook in Russia, while Russia falls apart under the incompetent punk? Who is Vlad really working for? Sounds like Russia is aiding Clinton and Obama to me. Promises, promises and nothing there. And it is not treason for candidates to pick up dirt on opponents no matter what scumbags say. If they could prove collusion with Russia in rigging ballots, OK. Give me a break. This reeks of setup. The brilliant magician could figure this possibility out. Or is Trump pulling a double deception, setting himself to be set up to blame Clinton and Obama? Who knows. Magicians know all about distraction and misdirection. But Donald does not own any venues to work anyway. Most celeb types are Demos, demonstrably by word and deed and always have been. The Penn does not have to be Sean Penn to know this. What is all this Kabbalah stuff with his ex-wife? I can do some great card tricks. Let’s cash in at the Teller and celeb right to the left, in libertarian fashion. I’m free; I’m free. Is that an Oldie but Goldie verse?

Let us face it, nobody could possibly function big time in the New York real estate scene and not be bent to some degree. So you see, he’s guilty of something. That’s for what you did when I wasn’t looking, as parents used to say when it turned out junior did not actually steal the cigarettes. Gee, doesn’t that son-in-law look real guilty with his ex-con dad? How about that German loan? You can’t trust a German. They say the krauts wanted to look at their gold in the Big Apple bank vault and were turned down. Some say there is no gold at Fort Knox. Some magic trick! Rumors, rumors, gossip, gossip. Stick to fiction writing. Am I writing fiction? How would I know, non-atheist people being so stupid? Well, I can’t prove anything. Guesswork will have to do. Who cares? You see, God will take care of justice in the end. I have the advantage over Penn & Teller. Do I really care anyway? I care if the country turns into chaos to my disadvantage. But, hey, there is always God to rely upon. Penn may have a Swiss Bank Account. Maybe not, a real clever trap door with money and gold and diamonds that even pros would find hard to find is up Jillette’s alley. And Swiss Bank accounts! What if they hire hit men and steal my (Penn’s) money, ‘cause nobody else has my anonymous bank account number. Swiss Banks are like Swiss cheese, lots of holes to be ripped off. Swiss Guards? Mercenaries for the Popes. I do not trust those rascals. I am an atheist. People who are not atheists do not either, especially God, I am sure. Jet set crowd, snow bunnies? Tarts and rogues. Funny things go on at hotels and resorts, real Swiss stuff.

Better not let anybody know about my secret stash. They may pull my teeth out and fingernails and stuff to get it anyway. Maybe real estate is better. They can’t walk off with it, just sue me or blackmail me to get the deed. If they torture me for the deed, I could rat them out, unless they kill me. But it would look suspicious, and my secret security system would worry them and confederate libertarian guys. Does he really have one? Are we being recorded? Let’s torture him. If he thinks we will kill him anyway, maybe he will go down to the grave with the secret. How to convince him (Penn) that we will let him go. What if the house is wired with explosives cleverly hidden. Penn as Charles Bronson the Mechanic?

Maybe I should just fanatically oppose the impeachment of El Trumpster for old times sake? We are reality TV buddies, second place buddies. Don’t be a sore loser. Think of your teeth, fingernails and retirement stash.

There are no atheists in retirement! Or foxholes? Are there any insomniacs in foxholes? They say combat soldiers are always looking for a chance to sleep and will do it anywhere. Not the Big Sleep, you understand. That is a big possibility. But those constant lapses in the Little Sleep will probably do you in too. Does Penn know how to hypnotize himself to sleep without fail? Well that’s something! He should sell it as discount benefit at his shows. I saw Crazy Guggenheim once, but he didn’t do any magic. He was from the Bay State too.

What the hell are you talking about, author? Theology is boring stuff; I thought I would divert the reader with a little whatever this is.

Sam Harris: Sam is so enraged at the prevalence of religion that he is exploring alternatives. What, you say? Rave parties. That’s right Ecstasy pills. There is a possibility of brain damage or death, but religious wars have killed millions. And drugs are scientific not supernatural stuff. The Sibyls of the Greco-Roman times past probably snorted volcanic fumes. That is scientific too. Compare that to those dumb Jews like Isaiah, Daniel. How about that teatotaler stuff about avoiding drunkenness? And no sex shows by Temple Prostitute Priestesses. The pagans probably had proto-LSD from fermented grain and mushrooms too. Now this is all scientific. Those Jews and Christians were so superstitious with their voices and visions. Voices and visions without drugs? Definitely Looney Tunes.

Actually, Sam, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with visions and re-creation of sensory perception by the brain, especially when it is under control. We do it in our dreams. Many manage to get some control over what they dream. There is this thing called lucid dreaming without drugs. Some find that enervating and enlightening.

Sam is one of the sleaziest distorters of truth out there. Let us talk about telepathy. Many people claim to experience it. This is eyewitness testimony and is evidence. Sam says it is superstition and that proves it because Sam and Richard and Penn and Hitchens say so. With that brain trust, how could they be wrong? Well reputation is not proof, and neither is eyewitness evidence to be sure.

Let us consider scams. We have this guy, Satan and his demons, affirmed to exist by believers. He is the Father of Lies, an impersonator, deceiver, and dedicated to keeping mankind ignorant, immoral, cowardly and corrupt. We assume he and pals have telepathic powers.

They put thoughts into the heads of psychics. The psychics think they have telepathic powers but are only receivers. They only read thoughts through devils. We test them. The demons want to make telepathy look like a con to prevent folks from realizing that those immoral thoughts popping into their heads are of satanic origin. Certainly makes sense for the Father of Lies. Keep everybody in doubt. Penn sneers and says the tests prove no such power exists. The people and even the psychic in some cases may know otherwise. But Old Nick loves Penn, Dick, Chris and Sam as they cover his trail quite well, useful idiots.

Oh, and you can prove that, author, the chorus rings in the ear? Not prove, but it is logically coherent as to motive, means and logical possibility. Of course, unless Carl Sagan of three dimensional shadow fame suggests extraterrestrial with superhuman powers due to the 10 million year old culture, aliens cannot be considered. Thousands of years of claims that such beings are real, from biblical, vedic, Egyptian, American and various sources means nothing. Because, you see, Carl Sagan has a degree from Cornell or some such place, and those morons of old are like the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, without a degree. That is to say, a degree from a blatant conman. So, I mean you are kidding? The atheist crowd will laugh you to scorn. Good reason to avoid the atheist crowd. Come out from among them and be ye separate. I call this guy Sam the Sham Harris.

Christopher Hitchens: Before we go on it must be clearly understood Christopher Hitchens is dead, as dead as a church door nail these last several years. And so is Karl Marx. Karl Marx came from very likely insincere Converso Jews, converted Christians for the money and social mobility. I have read that he had non-Jewish blood from some sources. This does not appear to be true. His grandfather was a rabbi. He had rich relatives in Holland and married a Goy German aristocrat whose family had some money too. He was a functional drunk and butt fiend, who blew huge sums of money on his vices, often resulting in his wife and children out in the street. His rich capitalist and aristocratic relatives often bailed him out of poverty. A clerk in England would make about 75 pounds a year at this time. A source (Marx in 90 Minutes, Paul Strathern) estimates Karl’s income as never less than 200 pounds a year, about three times the clerk’s. Yet his family was often homeless. His good buddy and co-author was rich too and bailed him out, Friedrich Engels. He used to invest in the stockmarket too with some success. In spite of this, his family suffered from homelessness and poverty, though managed to afford a maid that Marx had an ongoing affair with and impregnated. Well, he was married to an aristocrat and banging the maid is obligatory.

His wife was snooty and proud of her background, insisting that she be called by her title according to Strathern. Marx never worked a day in his life as a laborer. His mother suggested that he actually try working should he wish to complain about the matter. He supported British imperial ambitions to the hilt, no wonder his residence in Albion. It was to advance the revolution you see. A writer is a kind of clerk. His works are confusing, irrational and without foundation to a great degree. Harold Wilson, a professional economist, Labor Party Prime Minister, claimed that he never read Marx. Having browsed a bit there, myself, who can blame him?

He was a newspaperman by trade often and pretty good at promotion, self-promotion as well. Engels left money to his daughters, the poor proles, but they screwed up anyway and doubtless hoity-toity, ended up in bad estate.

Now I am a simple man in some ways. Marx did not care about his own health, the welfare of his family in any diligent manner, and I will be goddamned indeed if I am going to believe he cared about the working man or anyone else. His primary goal in life was sating his self-destructive lust. Why worry about murderous fraudulent revolts that solve nothing?

Christopher Hitchens was a drunk and butt fiend and likely died from his vices before his time. He was part Jewish and English rather than German. He was a Marxist for much of his life, and a supporter of British Imperialism, past tense (and doubtless present covertly.) He did not care about himself and I will be goddamned indeed if I am going to believe that this English boarding school crud cared about anyone else or anything other than sating his own self-destructive lusts. By the way, he was a newspaperman and writer as well, and pretty good at self-promotion. He sort of hobnobbed with the elite of England, re: Marx marrying into the nobility.

As an aside, the dead George Carlin was constantly railing about the plutocrats and how the country is doomed. One of his comic cronies related how he was always bumming cigarettes off of anybody who he could find to mooch off of. Another butt fiend with no regard for his own health. In the end, it is not the rich, it is the bitch, the witch that runs the show. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world in a world of fools. I am talking about lies, mind manipulation, the cup of Whore Babylon with its poison of drunken pagan crap of nature worship (environmentalism, Wicca, Catholicism, patriarchal creeds, established churches, such as Anglicanism with Charles Darwin interred in Westminster, the plethora of thousands of so called reformationist religions), abortion, euthanasia, atheism, various pagan alternatives to the alternative of idolatrous atheism, all opposed to God. Carlin the atheist moron admitted as much by claiming the people were blinded by the establishment. The morons doubtless blame it all on the rich. The occult world likes to use the greedy rich as scapegoats. It is not the money but the control of the mind that matters. The Four Horsemen play their role in this.

No, I did not lose count. George Carlin was added as an aside to the Hitch horse. Back to Table of Content



Chapter 5: The Fool

Bill Marr: Bill Marr, Mr. Politically Correct (to those who pay for him) is a strident atheist, or is he? Bill is said to be a comedian. I have never once laughed at anything he has ever said to my memory. I am not being mean spirited on the point. John Cleese is a religion basher but often found funny by me, and a guest of Marr’s from time to time. I think I used to laugh at Penn & Teller sometimes, but that was a long time ago. I laughed at George Carlin’s spiel.

The only thing that I found funny about Bill was not really a joke. Some time ago, I start hearing that Bill is not necessarily an atheist. It depends upon the mood he is in or something to that effect. If this is Tuesday, I must be agnostic. On Friday he is back to atheist. You see, Marr resents being pigeonholed. He wants to keep us in suspense. However, he claims to be 99% certain that God does not exist, on Tuesday, at any rate (I do not recall Marr mentioning specific days. I am being facetious, and you are not laughing, right?) I am 100% certain that Bill Marr is full of shit on his 99% claim. Oh, there may be some laughs there if he would lay out the parameters on how he came to 99% certainty on such an indefinable topic as atheism. We are not talking math here, or even statistics (not true math in my book, but with lots of numbers.)

Recently, Bill said the N-word and actually did something politically incorrect in his milieu. I saw the Internet replay and think it was even almost a funny comment. Is my mind playing tricks on me? The one funny thing that Bill ever says is Politically Incorrect, but not in Bugtussle, Arkansas, rather in the Big Apple and DC.

Bill cannot understand how anyone could possibly believe in the virgin birth. Mary must have been fooling around and not by giving BJ’s either. Bill, half Irish and half Jewish, knows all about Catholic schoolgirls and how they keep their virginity, and being half Jewish, is up on Jewish princesses (queens), cause Jesus was the prince of peace, you see, so Mary is a what? Impossible unless done to a lesbian couple on one or the other half of the relationship. But doesn’t count; that is science. How could a transcendent God pull that off? All theists are rubes, right, and God must believe in himself, the idiot. And we do not even want to talk about Adam and Eve and the rib thing. That is impossible except maybe in a Steven Spielberg movie with 200 million year old DNA that has been DOA some like number of years. We must not forget Dolly the Scottish ewe, and the lamb without daddy ram, but that is science. No moron transcendent God could pull that off.

Let us concede this is not proven. The Bible is a book of faith. Maybe God wants to see who has the right stuff, believer-wise? If Doc McCoy did this on Star Trek we suspect Bill would not blink, ‘cause that is science. Ha, ha, ha.

This benighted fool makes the four horsemen look erudite in comparison. This biographical vignette has nothing to do with atheism or Bill Marr as an entertainer as such, though Jenna Jameson (Vegas porn star) says Bill Marr is a groper and sexual harasser. Oh, and that has nothing to do with Bill or with Jenna for that matter as professional entertainers. Gossip, gossip, gossip, should it make us ashamed of ourselves? OK, but in absolute terms what do we really know about all the news that is fit to print in the New York Times? Is it not all gossip? Are you imagining Bill Marr buck naked in a porno film with Jenna Jameson, Jenna fending off the advances of a dirty old man? Are Bill and Jenna imagining this? Well, it is more of a joke that I have in mind rather than titillating anyone’s eroticism. Theology is dull stuff. But Whore Babylon, harlots, cups of fornication and drunkenness does have some biblical precedent. Smart ass, dumb ass remarks, sound bites, one liners, sleight of hands, sleight of phrase: Bill, Penn, Dick, Hitch, Sam in Shamalot! Once there was a spot, a soiled and dirty spot called Shamalot (or is that spelled Shamelot?)

Let us go back for a minute to Donald Trump. When those scandalous stories came out, I thought Clinton was a shoo-in, until that comedy Catholic roast-like thing in New York. Now Ann Coulter was a big pusher of Trump. Amy Poehler is a Trilateral Commission Rockefeller Babe pal of secular humanist Tina Fey. Let’s face it, Tina deep-sixed the McCain/Palin ticket for sure. I am looking at Hillary Clinton (blondish, feminist, pal of Amy Poehler and SNL guest), and her vapid smile after a joke on Weekend Update. She reminds me of Tina and Amy on Weekend Update, that stupid grin after each line. My God, he is going to win. Poehler is putting him over the top. Hillary is using Poehler as a comic model deliberately or not. It is over. Nobody wants a clown for Prez, certainly not a female one. Talk about Chelsea Handler as Prez. Sure enough, Trump won with his nage à trois of Coulter and Poehler, the two blondes fantasy ticket thing. Now Coulter is turning on Trump. Amy is mum.

I think Donald should do a Saturday Afternoon Live at the White House produced by the Trumpster to let off steam. He is in bed with glib remarks between two blondes, Coulter on the right (where else?) and Poehler on the left. If Poehler opts out for ideological reasons, Coulter can speak to a Poehler dummy manipulated by Donald, Charlie McCarthy style. Ann is pissed at Donald, but could she resist delivering lines to a liberal dummy? How long could she hold out?

Did you see that Annie Leibovitz photo of Tina Fey dressed up like Auntie Sam? Stamatina? Tina at the back and Stam (rhymes) the front nickname. She is gunning for the spot of our national icon’s other half, that bitch. She will politicize our national symbol and tear the country apart. And how about her one big impersonation of Sarah Palin? That is part of it. All the pyramids of the ancient world are built along a common perimeter. The center of this circle is Alaska near the panhandle. What is there? Juneau, Alaska, that is what, Sarah Palin’s old digs. The mother of Roman gods is Juno. Sound familiar? Weddings take place in what month, June. Sound familiar? Tina is shooting for Mrs. Stam, Auntie Stam. What hubris, Miss Bossypants. You see the pagan gods are trying to surround Sarah Palin and Juneau, Alaska. Count up the letters. June is 10+21+14+5 = 50 (Jubilee, fifty states, US). Juneau adds to 10+21+14+5+1+21 = 72 (very mystical, Sanhedrin, Moses and Aaron; 72 disciples of Jesus out to preach.) Our Uncle Sam is in mortal danger. I am absolutely opposed to the politicization of our national figurehead. I have a suggestion.

Auntie Em from Kansas, Dorothy’s mother. It is a Republican state, but Auntie Em was out with the rich folks (the rich witch: Margaret Hamilton) over Toto. She may very well have voted William Jennings Bryan as a Populist. But who knows. She is fictional but practically an icon along with her niece. We have just got to stop Miss Bossypants and her ruthless social climbing design on our Uncle Sam. By the way, Sam hailed from New England and New York. Kansas is like West but kind of Midwest and in the middle of the country. Down with Tina; up with Auntie Em. Back to Table of Content



Other Works by the Author

[(*]Available online[)*]

Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Space as Infinity: An Essay
Space as Infinity II: An Essay
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V


About the Author

My current biography and contact links are posted at Shakespir.com/profile/view/EdRochon. My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.

Back to Title Page

Atheist Drivel

A brief preface takes a very biblical look at the dark world of atheism. Chapter 1 critiques Ayn Rand, her logical inconsistencies, perverse sexuality, her destructive effect on the commonwealth of men, her subhuman abnegation of truth and her own best interests. Chapter 2 goes over the Noah's Ark story and nonsense attacks upon it, when the article of faith of an omnipotent and omniscient God would clearly handle any apparent discrepancies that appear to sceptics. But, no, we must blab on about the laws of nature. Chapter 3 goes after Friedrich Nietzsche and his subhuman perception of the glory of man. We will never become strong unless we heal our infirmities. Preying on the weaknesses and vices of other men is not the pathway to greatness. Chapter 4 goes after the modern Four Horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. This chapter covers a lot of territory. Read it to find out what territory. Chapter 5 takes a look at Bill Marr, segues over to Donald Trump, Tina Fey, Sarah Palin and whether Uncle Sam should have a wife consort in keeping with the rising stature of women. And who should that female icon be modeled on?

  • ISBN: 9781370727520
  • Author: Edward E. Rochon
  • Published: 2017-09-03 00:35:24
  • Words: 13303
Atheist Drivel Atheist Drivel