We Don’t Respect Your Ideological Atheism – Meme of the Day

To get respect you have to earn it.
To get respect you have to give it.

References Used in Modern Day Debate with Jim Majors of Atheist Republic

References for books we wish Atheist Republic CEO Jim Majors would read and review, or have review. Let us also repeat our suggestion that Atheist Republic regularly post articles on their forums of Atheists Acting Badly, including religious people being beat up for specific Atheist reasons (opposition to “religion”).

Here’s the show we were on. References for Jim Majors and the rest of Atheist Republic below.


The New Atheist Denial of History by Borden W. Painter Jr.: Proves hate-propaganda distributed by modern Atheists on the Internet is directly out of Soviet propaganda, and other ideological anti-religious propaganda from Secular regimes:

Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless by Daniel Peris. Anyone who reads this will see, quite eerily, how many online Atheist groups match this Stalinist hate movement that tortured, mutilated, “re-educated,” raped, and murdered millions–in the name of Atheism.


The New Atheist Threat: The Rise of Secular Extremists by CJ Werleman: A Professional Atheist exposes some of his other Professional Atheists for their propagandizing and “will skeptic for cash” ways, and their tendency to destroy their critics:

Faith of the Fatherless by psychologist Paul C. Vitz. Based on extensive social science, peer reviewed, you can look at yourself: https://smile.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-Psychology-Paul-Vitz-ebook/dp/B00GB97UE8/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=faith+of+the+fatherless&qid=1549676333&sr=8-1

Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief by research psychologist Justin L. Barrett. God is not a delusion and not “indoctrination” — sorry Atheists! https://smile.amazon.com/Born-Believers-Science-Childrens-Religious-ebook/dp/B005FLOGGS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=born+believers&qid=1549676363&sr=8-1 Typical example of an

Atheist Republic hate comment (one single example of countless):


Lies about the nonexistent “Christian Dark Ages” (one single example)


Books recommended on the Inquisition and Science:
Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

Galileo Goes to Jail & Other Myths about Science & Religion

Red Pill Religion’s creepy Internet stalker, Kevin Wayne

The Red Pill Religion team has a creepy stalker who goes by Kevin Wayne, passing off fake, altered, and otherwise phony screen shots allegedly under the name “Dean Esmay.” This guy is a loon, and anyone who believes any of his “screen shots” should speak to us about it. This video and this post are our only comment otherwise, just watch out for anything you read about “Dean Esmay” on the Internet–people make things up constantly. When you piss off the powerful, or people with small minds, this is what they do to you on the Internet.

I’ve had worse than this puke; if we aren’t afraid of drug companies, ideological Atheist/Skeptic/Rationalists, or Feminists, why would we be afraid of this puke and his fraudulent “Men’s Rights” friends?

On the Limited Utility and Poor Assumptions of IQ Tests

public domain, wikimedia commons
Einstein had a very high IQ. He was right about a lot of things but wrong about a lot of things. He was socially awkward, known for being lost in a mental fog/aydreaming, and having trouble with things like poor dress and hygiene. He was a nice guy, and everybody liked him. But you wouldn’t want him in charge of anything important. Which, by the way, he would have agreed with.

What IQ tests fundamentally measure is your ability to learn academic materials in a standard academic environment, and test for those skills that are good for those things. Which is useful to know about yourself, but it’s not apparent to me that we should allow such people to run society.

Indeed, a strong case could be made that anyone with an IQ over above, say, 115 or 120 is inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Until they prove otherwise, of course.

IQ says nothing at all about virtue: integrity, honor, loyalty, or the ability to be dispassionate when you need to be vs. knowing when you should be passionate. It has no ability to predict your moral sense at all, and if history is any guide high IQ people tend to be more prone to being amoral and to thinking they can invent and rationalize their own morality.

High IQ people can be very good at manipulating and fooling otherwise good and honest people who aren’t as quick as they are. High IQ people also, at least if my decades of observations are worth anything, have an unfortunate tendency to think they are a natural elite, and often seem to wish to be treated that way.

High IQ people also tend to have a lot of nervous disorders and personality quirks, and seem to show other social and developmental problems, once you get an IQ much above 140.

Furthermore, we have no test for Sociopathy/Psychopathy. You may know a sociopath and not know it. Worse, sociopathy is a particularly dangerous mental condition when married to a high IQ. Which means, in a very realistic sense, while it may not be fair, if you meet someone and say they have a very high IQ, you should watch for signs of sociopathy, narcissism, arrogance, cockiness, and other personality defects. Not all high IQ people are like this, but an awful lot of them are.

“He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.” –William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

Thus, if anything, our society should begin looking at the assumptions underlying the IQ tests and their importance–and also, how much we should ever trust men who are too clever.

For example, I recognize Vox Day as an extraordinarily brilliant man, with an obviously very high IQ (165 I think he’s had it published as). I very much enjoy him, and I do respect him and his lovely wife–though we’ve never met in person, we had a Twitter relationship at one time. But despite his brilliance, he’s quite often so full of himself it’s funny, and he has blind spots all over the place that are sometimes hilarious to watch. All because of his high IQ and how important he appears to think that makes his analyses, without apparently being aware of how quickly that can turn into arrogance and hubris.

I don’t mean to pick on Vox Day. When I look at the writings and thoughts of many other high IQ individuals, like Aaron Clarey or other figures who talk about their high IQs, I do see sometimes brilliant men doing brilliant things, but I also see high-IQ schmucks and douchebags and autistics who can’t even understand basic logic, such as Lawrence Krauss.

By the way I have a high IQ. How high is none of your business, but statistically it’s better than college professors on average for sure. I just find flashing one’s IQ to be vulgar, and to contribute to the mindset where we equate being very very clever with being virtuous, trustworthy, and fit to set the direction of society.

High IQ people like Stefan Molyneux obsessively defend the concept of IQ as vital. But then, he has a high IQ, so how much can we trust his objectivity? Especially when he seems to have so much invested in his own high IQ?

My very high-IQ friend John C. Wright says it well: having a high IQ is like having one very large and superstrong arm. It’s kind of cool, and it’s kind of useful, and it’s kind of dangerous, but that’s about it. It says very little else about you as a person that’s of value.

Atheist Vs. Atheist: Max & John C. Wright

Support http://RedPillReligion.com. Subscribe to our new channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLv1KpuUhKaTjvHS8YV7-Vw. John C. Wright & Max both used to be atheists. Join us for some holiday cheer as we examine atheism and its future.

Our Subscribestar page:

Our Patreon:

Our Bitcoin and Paypal Tip Jar:

Our Minds.com account:

Our Gab:

Our Facebook:

Jordan Peterson Affirms Hitler Was An Anti-Christian

A lot of people don’t like Jordan Peterson these days. People like Vox Day and Owen Benjamin and others have said he’s sold out. Whether that’s true or not, even they acknowledge he often speaks the truth, and he speaks it here.

Anyone who believes Hitler was a Christian believes anti-Christian hate propaganda. Hate propaganda that comes predominantly from Postmodern NeoMarxist universities and from Internet Atheism Cult Forums and YouTube channels and various phony “history” sites litter the Internet, but scholarly references affirm Mussolini and Hitler were both brutal repressors of and murderers of Christians. Especially the Catholics and the Lutherans in Germany. Stop trusting Internet sources, too much of it is Fakeapedia trash and people with axes to grind. Go with legitimate historical references, like Rabbi David G. Dalin’s The Myth of Hitler’s Pope.

Why Does Anybody Care About Richard Carrier’s Sex Life?

Every once in a while in our adventures in Atheistland–which is not the only topic we talk about on Red Pill Religion but it is a perennial favorite–we run into another story about pseudohistorian Richard Carrier’s supposed evil nature as a creepy sex predator. Or, about how he’s supposedly being defamed for petty jealous reasons with false allegations.

Honestly? I have NEVER been interested much one way or the other with Carrier’s sexual pecadillos, because he’s from Professional Atheistland, and in Professional Atheistland, the men and women are all either:

1) Sexless desperate nerds with no social skills. They are often highly unattractive but mostly on purpose. Note the On-Purpose part: they’re virtually all afflicted with poor self-image and self-loathing.

2) Some “sophisticated” variety of “polyamoury,” which is what in the old days we used to call “swingers.”

I’m quite certain Richard Carrier’s been very sexually promiscuous, in ways a lot of people would find gross or unhealthy. Also, he lies brazenly about history for a living, so he would obviously lie about anything else, too. Including whether or not he had “consent” to do whatever he did. Or whether he says he or didn’t do.

Liars lie, after all.

But this is Professional Atheistland, and the women in Professional Atheistland are women attracted to manipulative narcissists. Women are rare in Professional Atheistland, but they are all also either desperately unattractive and unhappy loners desperate for validation, OR, “sophisticated” swingers. They take pride in their “open-minded” sexuality and multiple partners. Liars lie, and “regret rape” and “rape allegations for revenge” are real things that women who don’t have any morals and ethics will use.

To be honest, if you’re in a room full of people who do nothing but obsess about sex and open-mindedness about it, and take pride in their many sexual adventures, “consent” become a meaningless concept.

In short, I don’t know what happened, because these people are all into wild crazy sex. They just help prove that “consent” isn’t really a coherent concept legally or morally when it comes to sex. If anyone consented to anything, it was when they walked into a room full of sex-obsessed neurotic ideologues in a bizarre hate cult.

How about we go back to a notion that promiscuous sex is neither healthy, brave, admirable, or even attractive. Indeed, isn’t good for anyone involved let alone society as a whole. How about we start respecting that “monogamy” is actually natural in humans (much much well-established science shows) and socially desirable.

And that promiscuity is neither brave nor admirable. Besides the sexual diseases and unloved or aborted children it brings, it also eventually brings about confusion and recrimination and more.

Richard Carrier lives in a land where everybody’s most important value is being “not judgemental” about sex, but being judgemental about everything else. Except that people with no morals usually turn on each other.

Steve McRae, Abuser of Child Rape Survivors, Calls Red Pill Religion “Morally Bankrupt”

Steve McRae, a well-known professional hater of Christians & Believing Jews, has recently morally condemned the Red Pill Religion team.

Problem 1: This is a man whoo has insulted multiple Red Pill Religion team members who are Child Sex Abuse survivors. He also routinely trades in demonstrable pseudoscience, demonstrable pseudohistory, and demonstrable lies about the nature of religious belief and its history. Why would anyone care about such a man’s moral condemnation?

Problem 2: McRae and his group of ideological fellow travelers and hangers-on are also people who routinely deny that there is any objective morality anyway.

So our answer to McRae and his fellow moralizing bullying cultists and pseudoscholars is simple: you have no moral leg to stand on condemning anyone. You mock, abuse, and marginalize the vast majority of the world’s Child Rape victims, you use and abuse other Child Rape survivors to score political points, and you routinely hang out with pseudoscientists and pseudohistorians peddling easily debunked, propagandistic garbage.

As a child molestation survivor myself–at the hands of Secular authorities–I have no particular distress being morally condemned by McRae, or his friends/groupies. These are people who pretend to be nice but will lie about you or mischaracterize you and even insult you, publicly, when you’re not there to defend yourself. These are people who routinely mute, or mock, anyone who challenges their views in any serious way. They are people who pretend to represent “Science” when they routinely get contemporary mainstream science wrong, and who pretend to represent “empathy” and being “nice” while they routinely cruel condescending mocking and hateful towards people who don’t share their ideological worldview.

The fact that they’re also cruel to victims of Child Sex Abuse who don’t happen to be politically “worthy” of McRae & co’s selective empathy should also tell you a lot.

Those who defend Ideological Secularism while condemning Christians for their much smaller sex abuse problem are more than hypocrites. They’re hatemongers, period. We sex abuse survivors are overwhelmingly more likely to be abused by Secular authorities than religious ones. So when Anti-Religious zealots feel entitled to morally condemn everyone else, the rest of us have no obligation to listen or care.

These are people who will never subject themselves, or people or things they like, to the same standards they apply to all religious people.

And they’re also, it bears repeating, people who will routinely tell you that morality is entirely subjective or a social construct.

In short, being called Morally Bankrupt by people who have no morals is not particularly upsetting.


PS: This is an open offer to anyone in McRae’s orbit who is taking this guy seriously to come onto a stream and talk to us. We offered McRae friendship and dialogue and discussions on how to make Atheist-Theist relations better and how to do scientific debates in an interesting and truly useful way, but no dice. Still, we’re happy to talk to anyone who was on this stream, or listening to it, who wants OUR perspective.

Max & Rachel Fulton Brown on Academic Censorship

Christian-hating academics are common. Catholic-hating academics are common. Ideological Atheist academics are common. They appear to want to completely rewrite history and to smear anyone who actually takes classical culture and classical spiritualism seriously. Professor Rachel Fulton Brown has faced ongoing harassment and smearing and deplatforming for daring to challenge anti-Christian, anti-Mary, anti-Catholic pseudohistory in history. Tune in as we discuss tonight!

Professor Brown’s Academic Homepage: http://home.uchicago.edu/~rfulton

Rachel’s Not-so-academic Blog: http://fencingbearatprayer.blogspot.com

Milo Yiannopoulos’s story:
Middle Rages: Why the Battle for Medieval Studies Matters to America

Why The Battle For Medieval Studies Matters To America

Sample of Professor Brown’s book on Mary and Prayer:

Social Media Censorship and the Future of Online Discourse

Dustin Nemos, Max, Deflating Atheism, and maybe some friends will have a conversation about the recent past and near future.