PayPal

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The Fake News of Faith




"Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life." – Ayn Rand

An agnostic is an atheist who shrinks from the intellectual task of proving that God or Allah as deities do not exist and never have existed. God did not “die.” He simply never was. The task is both a simple and a difficult one. The absence of God’s meddling into man’s affairs does not constitute proof of God’s non-existence in human affairs or in temporal matters, such as in science. This was the frequent position taken by our country’s Founders, most notably by Thomas Jefferson. One can’t “prove” the non-existence of something that isn’t there and never was here or anywhere. Deists believed that God the Creator of man and the universe retreated from human affairs, and then left the scene to reside for eternity shielded from human sight on his throne somewhere behind the Crab Nebula.


God’s purported existence is analogous to a child’s believing in the tooth fairy. The child falls asleep after losing a tooth, and is assured by a parent that if she is a good girl and goes to sleep, in the morning when she wakes up she will find a tooth, or a candy, or a silver dollar under her pillow. The parent will not divulge that she will be the “miracle worker.” I was often subjected to this species of duplicitous folderol. I suspected it was duplicity, and resented it, but as a child I did not have enough knowledge to contest it.

However, this has been and continues to be the epistemological and metaphysical state of mind of adults. Most atheists fail to convince believers of the non-existence of a “supreme being.” Although dedicated atheists, agnostics, and other doubters, such as Robert Ingersoll, and for a time Mark Twain, together with a host of contemporary atheists, argued often persuasively against the organized churches of virtually every denomination, highlighting their hypocrisies, persecutions, crimes, and lapses, but they were  invariably confronted and stymied by some form of the “I just feel that God exists and so it is true” argument, and so they ultimately failed to burst the fanciful bubble of a “First Cause” (a.k.a. the “Big Bang” hypothesis) because they neglected to point out the primacy of existence. With the believers, they took existence for granted, except that the reality they perceived was not an extraneous, subjective phenomenon, as it was to the believers. They did not know how to refute or answer an argument from feeling or from the argument from innate knowledge. They could not grasp how much believers were in denial of existence and closed to reason.

For a discussion of the primacy of existence, see Ayn Rand.

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

From my observations, believers of all types – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. – do not even bother to “look inward” in search of the “truth.” They simply accept the existence of God as received wisdom not to be questioned. They’ve believed it for most of their adult lives and largely cannot or will not allow their faith to be shaken.

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.. .

Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.

Furthermore:

Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

If you claim knowledge of that which does not exist but which nevertheless has a tenacious hold on
Occasionally, a believer will have this thought.
your consciousness in the face of the evidence of your senses and in defiance of reason, we can say that you are claiming “fake news.” It is, as a CNN reporter said of the network’s obsessing over President Trump’s alleged Russian connections, a big “nothing burger,” a multi-millennia old “nothing burger,” responsible over eons for incalculable lives lost or lives lived in misery and in vain and trapped in fathomless troughs of hope and wishes, all vacuums of unrealizable fantasies.

CNN and its allies on the Left in and out of politics (such as Special Counsel Robert Mueller) have faith that Trump committed a crime, so they are in search of one; it doesn’t even have to have anything to do with Russia. Their hatred of Trump is an all-consuming kind of religion, and they will not let it go. Other than Islam, Trumpaphobia is the only other faith I know of that is based on sheer, naked, unadulterated malice for the man and his policies, a hatred of the good for being the good.

CNN, Mueller, and the rest of the whole fake news gang are in pursuit of their own unrealizable fantasies.they adhere to a creed that does not even have a dogma. They all believe in “what ain’t so.”

Friday, July 7, 2017

The Fraud of Faith

Recently, a leading, pro-Brexit, and articulate critic of the European Union confessed that he has “faith”: Faith in what? In the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful Deity. To judge by the encounters I’ve had with Christians (I do not have many discussions with Jews or  Muslims on the subject of God), faith for people is a form of unquestionable certitude – almost synonymous with certainty – as an emotional means of knowing the truth about God etc. thanks to their unexamined feelings. Too likely their faith in the existence or condition of something not in the real world undercuts their profession of being reality-oriented. “I know that capitalism works and sets men free and that Britain can only become stronger if it leaves the EU.”  How does he know that? Is his epistemology and metaphysics poisoned by faith?  The mental compartmentalization of his faith and the real, of the provable or demonstratable of the real versus the unprovable, makes his fealty to reality untenable.

The position of most people is: “What else is there but faith in the Almighty, in miracles, in God’s goodness, and the sublime imperative handed down by God to treat all men as brothers? God created the universe, and everything. Sure, reason has its place in man’s existence but it must keep to its place – we’re not saying that doing the Hokey Pokey will start a car’s engine, in lieu of simply turning the ignition key – however , that is the limit of reason, logic, and of what we call cause and effect. Reason and reality are not substitutes for faith,” they aver with fervor. “The evidence of the senses and reason should not be the paramount measures of authentic knowledge.” So, they say; if the emotion is real and strong enough, so must be the object of that emotion.

An unexamined, spontaneous emotional appraisal is a dangerous thing. If one feels that something is true or right, then it must be true or right. What often stuns me is to meet someone who is otherwise completely rational and reality-oriented and then to hear him admit, in passing or unintentionally, that he believes in a Deity, or in a lucky rabbit’s foot. Faith in the reality of the non-existent and unprovable, to say nothing of the acceptance as “divine” handwork of the contradictory a (such as the destructive handiwork of earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions), becomes a substitute for knowledge.

Emotions are not causeless, rootless, or inexplicable. Love is not blind. Nor is hate. Even indifference to an artwork, a person, or thing, as a pre-conceptual appraisal, has an emotional base. An emotion is partly a physiological response to one’s values, or to non-values, to likes or dislikes, to attractions or fear. It is closely linked to the excitation of the nervous system, in various states and strengths, depending on the appraisal of the value seen and responded to; but it is a value one is responding to. It just does not well up within one, causelessly; the cause must be discovered and examined because it always has one. Rational introspection is a key to “knowing” whether or not one’s appraisal of a person or thing is correct or anchored in reality.
Hoping such earnest wishing will make something so
The response can be positive, such as at the sight of Michelangelo’s “David,” which would be a value because it depicts man as he can and ought to be; or to its opposite, such as the sight of a Muslim bowing to Mecca and banging his forehead on the ground until it’s black and blue in obsequious, abject submission to an ethereal entity he has never seen and never will and could never prove exists; to question the existence of Allah or the morality of Sharia is to commit the Islamic equivalent of “thoughtcrime”; one’s response to such a sight can be contempt for the person or pity or some other negative emotion, and not complimentary. Yet an emotion is governed by one’s responses to values affirmed or newly created, or to values denied, attacked, or destroyed. One must exert mental effort to discover why.
Emotions are not a sure-fire “touchstone” means to knowledge, nor should they be regarded as reliable tools to knowledge. Emotions can indicate or signal a previously unconscious appraisal of a person or a thing, but they are not by themselves knowledge. Just because one may “feel” good or bad about a person or a thing does not tell one if it is good or bad; it can only alert one to a thing’s potential, or unexamined goodness or badness. Whether or not it is one or the other will require one’s volition; it requires the initiation of thought.

Wishing in earnest for something to come true.


Ostensibly many otherwise rational individuals are guilty of compartmentalizing their rational response to values and divorcing them from their paramount values, such as “faith” in a supreme being.  They resort to compartmentalizing because they cannot let go of the mystical element of faith. Belief in a supreme being is to them an unaccountable means of adopting a moral code from somewhere. Because it has no demonstrable origin, eluding the evidence of the senses, they do not feel obligated to attempt to prove it.
In her Hoover paper, The Challenge of Dawa, Ayaan Hirsi Ali goes into detail about the differences between the Medina and Mecca Muslims, and why only the Mecca Muslims could salvage and reform Islam as a “great” faith. The “Mecca” Muslims are basically peaceful. The “Medina” Muslims are warlike and bent on conquest.  Hirsi Ali’s introduction of this analogy begins on  page 11.

The main question here should be: Given Islam’s 14 00 year, rapacious, murderous rampage among Muslims themselves (the Sunnis vs. the Shi’ites and various Islamic sub-groups)  and against the West, why would anyone want to save it as a “great” faith? Given Islam’s sociopathic and nihilist nature, how can it be called “great”?

Islam is a more fundamental, more primitive religion. Period. Not so ironically, Christianity, although older than Islam, but with its own centuries of horrors, is less consistent in its dogma and practice; Islam is the more consistent religion, given its anti-life, anti-man, anti-individual premise.

Per Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islam teaches you to put yourself last, and only by putting yourself last will Allah reward you at the end. Selfishness is a great sin in Christianity, but in Islam it is the greatest, unforgiveable sin, because selfishness in oneself explicitly denies Allah. One is expected to consciously efface oneself in deference to Allah’s pleasure. One’s sole “selfish” value must be Allah and obeying him.

Praying to Jesus or to Allah? Does it
make a difference? God is not
even a ghost.
As a “faith,” Islam is nihilist in nature. It is programmed or designed to erase all affirmative, pro-living-on-earth values. But, on an individual basis, is not the “reward” a promise of an eternity in “Paradise for having obeyed Allah’s every command? Isn’t that, for an individual Muslim, a selfish value or motivation? As a “faith,” Christianity at least stresses the importance of individual salvation, even if one is not a conscientious practitioner of the faith. However, when Christians pray, the praying is a form of focused wishful thinking; it is centered on the values of an individual, whether or not they are real of fanciful. When a Muslim prays, it is a form of utter abnegation of the self in obsequious deference to the non-existent.


Faith in a supreme being is a belief that the shapes of tall cumulonimbiform clouds actually mean something more than being collections of water vapor or frozen crystals. To read meaning into a cotton candy cloud, if it happens to resemble a face or a thing, is to engage in a hallucination or wishful thinking. Faith is a fraud.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Projects Past and Future



I am taking a break from the news – real and fake, and from Islam, especially – to move to a new location and to catch up on reading, writing, and research. The moving chore should be completed by the end of July. One thing I will have made progress on (which I didn’t expect to make) is my next Cyrus Skeen novel, the 27th, Inquest, set in San Francisco in 1927, a few years before the events in China Basin, the very first Skeen detective novel, set in December 1929. I have settled on the cover for Inquest and completed a hand full of chapters. The story deals with how a local county district attorney of the Progressive persuasion attempts to scuttle Skeen’s career, after Skeen has killed a murderer in self-defense who was trying to murder him, fails, and takes more direct action, and also fails.

His enemies are not necessarily common criminals, but rather ambitious society managers (usually academics from prestigious universities) such as Progressives and other collectivists. Some of the latter organize civic campaigns to have his license revoked and Skeen run out of town. Some of these characters are religiously fanatical, not above using genuine thugs to put him out of business; others are money-grubbing hypocrites, such as the principals of a convent who hire their novices out to the rich man’s bordello next door. Another respected outfit rescues orphaned girls only to sell them into sexual slavery. Skeen exposes and defeats them all. But in each title there is an overt political theme that I

Skeen encounters the Muslim Brotherhood
convert into initial confusion for the protagonist, the detective, until he discovers and resolves the anti-moral premise. In one title, The Black Stone, he runs smack into the early agents of the Muslim Brotherhood when he investigates some particularly horrific murders and mutilations. Not even the BOI – the Bureau of Investigation,  the early FBI – had heard of Islam or the Brotherhood.

Skeen will not yet have met the love of his life and his future wife, Dilys Jones (an artist whose ambition is to paint nude portraits of many famous and infamous women in history), or any of the other regulars in the series: Lieutenant Patrick Donovan Skeen’s friend and his chief contact in the San Francisco Police Department; Mickey Kane, the top reporter of the Observer-World; Valda Redfern, a fashion model and Dilys’s favorite model; Lieutenant “Manny” Raggio; Maud Skipton, the Nob Hill socialite; and others.


The first Chess Hanrahan novel,
I have one other detective novel series of four titles to which I do not plan to add new ones; it is a first person narrative featuring Chess Hanrahan, a private detective in contemporary New York City who takes on cases he calls “paradoxes.” It is published by Perfect Crime Books in Baltimore. There is the three-title suspense series, beginning with Whisper the Guns, starring the American entrepreneur hero, Merritt Fury, which chronicles his conflicts with the government (more specifically with the U.S. State Department, and in Whisper the Guns his struggle with the Mainland Chinese government in Hong Kong.

My magnum opus, however, is the six-title series, Sparrowhawk, which dramatizes the origins of the American Revolution between 1745 and 1775. A seventh title is the New Sparrowhawk Companion, which contains a guide to the hundreds of characters, to the language, and to the historical facts underlying the Revolution. It tells the story of two Britons from their formative years to their

A novel of Soviet espionage
adult maturation, one from the Cornwall peasantry and one from the aristocracy. Both become American patriots. The original publisher, MacAdam/Cage Publishing of San Francisco, went out of business years ago, when its founder died, his successors declaring bankruptcy and bilking most of its stable of authors out of their royalties. I found it necessary to

The Sparrowhawk series has been
in continuous publication since 2002.
republish the series myself, under the Patrick Henry Press imprint, unwilling to see it fall between the cracks of literary achievement and success. I had to fight another publisher for the e-book rights for years, and finally was able to reclaim them. The series therefore has been in continuous publication since 2002. It, together with titles from the other series, has enjoyed unremitting sales as print books, on Kindle, and as Audible books.

I managed to complete six Skeen novels and several Rule of Reason columns while in this hot Texas town, which I have grown to loathe. I expect to accomplish much more in my new “digs,” which I have been promised to be far more salubrious environment than Texas.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Ramadana-Ding-Dong Or, Bringing Joy to Allah


Allah in disguise, dancing a jig to celebrate
the deaths of infidel children.
Bringing joy to Allah is to cause him to perform a Hitlerian jig in ecstasy, when over a dozen British girls are reduced, as Bruce Bawer described it, “to random splatters of blood and to charred, unidentifiable bits and pieces of flesh and bone” in Manchester, England. Bringing death to the children of infidels is an especial “high” for Allah. In the background one may also espy “Mad Dog” Mohammad doing a shimmy and a Moon Walk, as well.

The Muslim who has brought joy to Allah has “gone mental.” Homicidal insanity, after all, is just another way of looking at life – and death. Don’t be so judgmental!

I have never accepted the insanity plea as a legitimate means to escape justice. If a defendant could cook his own meals and drive a car, brush his teeth, and perform other normal, everyday actions without killing himself, then he was sane enough to commit the crime, to engage in premeditation, thinking, plotting, and acting. “Insane” or “unstable” individuals who commit crimes ALWAYS know what they’re doing. No one is ever going to convince me otherwise. Such a person lives in a compartmentalized universe composed 90% obsessing fantasy (Islam’s “ideal” world, belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful deity, and an afterlife in a so-called Paradise) and 10% reality, when he walks and talks and can open and close doors and doesn’t blow himself up while assembling the components of a suicide bomb.

Finally, Islam can only go “mental” because it creates a causo-connective loop, which begins in the Koran with Mohammad and Allah and ends in the Koran with Mohammad and Allah. Muslims must hula-hoop on that loop and act on their “faith” to prove themselves unswervingly devout, and prove it especially to those who would otherwise punish them. Sooner or later even their humble brood mares or baby ovens must take up the knife or the steering wheel and kill unbelievers, as they have done in Israel and now in London. Islam is a homicidal rut from which there is no escape. You either buy it completely or you leave big chunks of it behind in the Fantasy House and try to live in the real world.
While many fellow “Islamophobes” have taken the absolutely right position on Islam, I do not believe with them in “hate crime.” Muslims are notorious for hating everything not Islamic and are more or less free to spout “hate speech” without consequence. Muslims regularly commit “hate crimes.” If a Muslim commits murder, or rape, or robbery, he should be arraigned, convicted, and sentenced for his crime, not for what was going through his mind when he committed the crime. You can deduce why the person committed the crime, and form an estimate of his character and overall world view or philosophy, and that deduction may be used as indicative of a person’s motive. But the person’s thoughts should not be treated with the same moral or legal gravity as the actual crime. And even if you had some sort of magic X-Ray machine that could see inside a person’s mind, that, too, would be irrelevant. Such a deduction should be based on the character of the crime. “Hate crime” is an idea that can easily lead to Orwellian “thoughtcrime.

Making a practice of condemning a hateful and despicable criminal’s thoughts can redound on the wholly correct and rational person’s freedom in a legal sense. That is why condoning “hate speech” is dangerous. “Hate speech,” is a wholly invalid concept, as invalid as is “hate crime.” Because speech is an actual action, its character is irrelevant as an action taken by a speaker or writer against a person, idea, or organization, regardless of its content. It’s the action in reality that is provable and demonstrable, not the contents of a person’s mind. 

Throwing mental darts or daggers at something does not fall in the realm of cause-and-effect. By mental darts or daggers, I mean, for example, throwing "dirty looks" at Muslims. Everyone should throw dirty looks at Muslims or make faces at them or stick out one’s tongue. Such an action does not result in lightning bolts that can scorch anyone or cartoonish sucker-punches that can double a Muslim over in agony. “Hate speech” so easily leads to censorship.

Allah, Osama, and Mohammad all
get high on the deaths of infidels
However, on to the primary subject of this column. Bruce Bawer had some interesting observations on the Ramadan slaughter on London Bridge in his June 3rd column on FrontPage, “Ramadan London: The holy month returns with its sacred traditions.”

Yet again it has returned, the sublime and hallowed month of Ramadan – a beautiful and particularly sacred period that was an original part of the magnificent revelation handed down by Allah to the Prophet himself (peace be upon him) in the Holy Quran. Indeed, it has been widely postulated by many of our holiest of men that the precious text of that sacred volume was revealed to the Prophet himself (even more peace be upon him) during the very first Ramadan.

That is, it was “revealed” to Mohammad when he was starving in a cave above Mecca, and then an angel visited him during his hallucinations, and performed a kind of Vulcan “mind meld” on him and stuffed his little brain with the Koran. This was the first Ramadana-Ding-Dong. He is alleged to have shouted to witnesses down the mountain, “Iftar! Iftar! Rah, rah, rah! Sizz, Boom, Bah!” while doing a wholly inappropriate and suggestive swivel-hipped movement and snacking on a sausage link.

Now that story, as satirical as it is, is about as credible and believable as the entire “religion” of Islam and, indeed, of Mohammad’s existence. Big Mo and the Koran, it seems, appear to have been the creation of a multi-generation of Islamic scribes and “scholars” over 1,400 years. He has the historic existence of Fred Flintstone or the Frankenstein creature.

Bawer emphasizes that Ramadan obliges Muslims to fast and pray a lot from sun-up to sun-down, and to ignore those hunger pangs, but does not demand that they fast from business as usual, that is, raising holy hell at home and outside of it:

….by strictly avoiding the intake of food and beverages, the use of tobacco, and any kind of carnal activity, although the standard acts of incestuous intercourse with minors and, naturally, the brutal sexual violation of the wives and offspring of infidels can be safely pursued per usual. Furthermore, it is to be hoped that the faithful will manifest the great extent of their self-restraint during this period by scheduling such activities as female genital mutilation, wife-beating, and the theologically obligatory honor killing of wives, sisters, and daughters for the hours following sundown…..

Bawer adds:

It is particularly vital that the people of God make a special effort during the holy month of Ramadan not to engage in any act of unkindness, injustice, or insensitivity directed at their fellow believers – although, of course, the tossing of homosexuals from the roofs of buildings, the remorseless stoning to death of rape victims, and the violent execution of apostates may proceed as usual, preferably during the hours of darkness.

To be a really, really devout Muslim requires that one become a Muslim activist, and exert effort to be proactive in expressing the faith in exemplary demonstrations of piety and in forceful and dramatic examples of da’wah:

All of this contemplative and devout activity, to be sure, should not be permitted to distract the children of Allah from such equally urgent and virtuous tasks as mowing down infidels with cars, trucks, and other vehicles, shooting deadly rockets into the heart of urban areas where civilian non-believers are wont to gather, and committing sundry acts of mass annihilation and bloodshed involving such handy implements as machetes and Kalashnikovs.

Kathy Griffin culturally appropriated ISIS’s
favorite pastime. “Kathy is Great!”
Has that earned her a death fatwah?
Bawer does not mention it, but the Muslim aspiring to Allah-blessed purity should familiarize himself with the local hardware store in which to secure (but not necessarily purchase, shoplifting from infidels is a perfect Muslim virtue) boxes of screws, bolts, nails, and ball-bearings to assemble into bombs to explode in the midst of the children of kaffirs and infidels and sports enthusiasts

Most important of all, the consummate lessons of self-control that the people of the Holy Quran are expected to take to heart during Ramadan should not be misconstrued in such a way as to prevent them from setting off bombs at major sporting events, high-profile musical performances, and other large public events at which there is a good chance of reducing large numbers of infidels, especially the small and helpless children of the infidels, to random splatters of blood and to charred, unidentifiable bits and pieces of flesh and bone. On the contrary, the followers of Allah and disciples of the Prophet (peace, yet again, be upon him) should never lose sight of the fact that it is during Ramadan, above all times, that acts of righteous slaughter and virtuous extirpation – those blessed sanguinary proofs of Islamic piety and allegiance – bring even more joy to Allah in His Heaven than they do during the remainder of the year.

Bringing joy to Allah is worth multitudinous Holy Brownie Points and certain to reward an enterprising and energetic Muslim with a zillion renewable virgins, his own grape vine farm, an exclusive Raisinet concession in infidel movie houses, and the privilege of cleaning the dirt from between Allah’s toes (blessing and peace be between his digits).

The enquiring Muslim, however, might, in due time, ask: If Allah is so powerful, why doesn’t he wage Jihad himself? Why does he leave it to fallible and often thick-brained humans to do his work? He could wipe out all the Jews and infidels in one fell swoop with a wave of his holy hand, and then there would be genuine peace and his children could live without having to risk their lives performing unique da’wah.

However, no Muslim would be so curious. That’s what I mean when I say that Islam creates a causo-connective loop that would prohibit a Muslim from reaching that level of thought. It’s a comfortable loop few Muslims would ever want to abandon. Unlike the theology and practice of other systems, Islam thoroughly sabotages one’s cognitive powers and the faculty of thought.

That is why Islam is evil. To borrow a famous adverting slogan: You can check into the Islamic Motel, but you won’t check out. Not unless you accept reality and face it, as many apostates have done, at the risk of their lives from the “Religion of Peace.”