Varieties of Statism

A statist is defined as someone who favors the “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.”

This is a humorous, but sadly very accurate, representation of the numerous forms statism takes.

Thanks goes to Francois Tremblay for this picture.

If the picture is too small to view click to enlarge it.

Varieties of Statism

Real Men Don't Murder People

Introduction

A while back I received a comment on my post titled Why I Do Not Support the Troops by a seemingly illogical, hateful, and sexist (even though he denies it in the website's Introduction) man who goes by the name Viceroy. He writes on a blog called Real Men Have Spoken.

Despite the silly name of the website this army vet wrote to me on the aforementioned post about how wrong I am. I responded but he never replied. I guess it's kind of hard to when facts are staring you in the face. At Kassie Dill's blog post about her unconstitutional treatment at the hands of cops and the courts I left a comment telling her I hope she gets through everything OK and good luck. This guy (and a few other illogical and hateful statists) spewed their nonsense and one guy essentially told me he'd like to see me dead! It's amazing how much these ardent statists are so much like fundamentalist theists. They're horribly intolerant, hateful, and ignorant to boot. That doesn't make for much of a conversation but I'm sure what I write goes way over their heads anyway. Here is this one guy's threat towards myself, Kassie Dill, and another Dill supporter. “magic” wrote:

Gauntlet thrown cunt... Face the challenge... And for Arizona and dido... I hope you and this stupid bitch are hit by a bus and I witness it... And as a veteran.... A medic and a nurse I realize I have the ability to save your life but I'd just walk away because you don't support what I do

Wow.... is all I can think to say. Also in the comments the same illogical individual who left the comment on my blog responded with the following:

Viceroy said...

You are lucky you didn't get the shit kicked out of you. These are real people, with real power, doing real shit. You are just an annoying little girl, who is gaining notoriety by being just that.

Oh and Arizona... Just for you buddy

http://www.realmenhavespoken.com/2011/11/if-you-dont-support-troops-fuck-you.html

There is a challenge to you kassie dill, don't be a typical female and "pussy" out.

Gloves are off kid, let rock.

Since he called me (and Kassie) out to read the post linked to below and respond to his response to the above video by Kassie Dill I've decided to do just that. [1] I'm going to go through it and refute this guy's pathetic and immature insults and other misinformation. His comments will be in blockquotes while my comments will follow.

Before I begin I'd like to highlight something that was written in his website's Introduction. It says in part,

4. Let's only use new, relevant facts. The newer the facts the better. Also, if you are going to argue against us, don't being that weak crap. Get off your ass, do your research and honestly debate us; or else we will crush you. I would like to illustrate the failure of the feminists. (Betty Friedan's 1963 book The Feminine Mystique could be considered the true beginning of the woman of today)

Let's see if this “man” follows his own rules shall we?

Update – 11-30-11: It's come to my attention that “Viceroy” did not write the blog post I tore apart below. A fellow jackass who goes by the name of “Magnus” did. This guy is such a doochebag that on their blog he actually writes of himself in his bio: “Magnus: The Man Behind the Legend.” Holy shit! That's too damn funny. It seems all the “men” (more like whiny, ignorant bitches) who write on this website all suffer from some kind of inferiority complex (not to mention a severe lack of critical thinking skills) and seem to feel the need to make themselves appear more “manly” then they really are. Because it was Viceroy who pointed me to the post in question and said, “Just for you buddy,” it appeared he had written it, but I was wrong. It was another wannabe macho man asshole. Even though it wasn't Viceroy who wrote the following post it seems that what I say about Magnus can also apply to Viceroy since it seems he fully supports this post.

Let the Games Begin...

Ignorant, and obviously unsophisticated, old Viceroy Magnus begins his post by explaining how he's been in numerous countries in his military career and how not a single time over all those years did a single person tell him they didn't support the troops. He also has a theory about why he didn't meet anyone who didn't support the troops:

I may have been in the same place as someone who did, but I would have never known it. Why, because the people that do not support the troops are fucking pussies. PURE PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

He continues,

It takes a real sack of shit to bash the very same people that allow you to breathe delicious, fresh air. I mean what type of person is so jaded that they would openly admit to hating the very people that protect and weave the fabric of democracy?

This is hilarious. Since when has the U.S. military ever “protected” our freedoms? Which country has ever come over here and tried to take away any of our freedoms? None. Of course, the fact is there is a country that works very hard to consolidate its power and take away more and more of the freedoms it was supposedly created to protect: the united states. [2] If anything, the U.S. is responsible for going to other countries and imposing itself on others. [3]

After this he asks the following question and posts several pictures of various people protesting war, such as Code Pink.

What do these pieces of shit look like you ask? Well here are a few additional pictures I happen to dig up. Just look long and hard. These people are why Darwin was wrong. Natural selection is not true because these people should have died a long time ago. We will start with one particular group that makes me so mad I could literally cook a 10 inch thick steak on my forehead. Their name is Code Pink. It is an anti-war group consisting of mostly women. Here are a few pics so you know just what they are about.

On the contrary I'd say he seems to disprove evolution because at least these women are anti-imperialist and speak out against injustice. He sounds like some gun toting, flag waving, makes-me-sick-to-my-stomach “patriotic” buffoon who is so clueless as to the government’s actions in trying to dominate other countries, and taking away our freedoms and rights.

From this point on he just posts several pictures of Code Pink and proceeds to make fun of them. He doesn't even try to actually...you know, give any facts about why they're wrong or anything.

Viceroy Magnus posts one picture (below) of Code Pink and writes...

Hmmm, something seems to be missing from this quote. Can't quite put my finger on it.... Oh wait! Half the quote is missing! The real quote states, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Well now that makes a lot more sense now. Hey ladies, way to chop up a quote to let it fill your propaganda spewing mouths. I only wish Ben Franklin were still alive so he could have forcefully given all you women syphilis. Anyone can chop up someones quote to fit their needs. Here, I chop up Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous I Have A Dream Speech:

"It would be fatal to give the Negro equality. The Negro community must not realize that their destiny is tied up in freedom. Negros, go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities. I have a dream that one day, white boys and white girls, with faith, will be able to transform our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood." -MLK Jr

See how easy that was. Every word I just typed was said by MLK himself. In order too. I just removed some key words. That's called being a liar women. So either you have to lie to get your message across because there is no actual reason you do what you do, or you are too stupid to research the quotes you used. Either way, I hope 9/11 happens again and somehow only you and the terrorist in the planes die while the rest of the people somehow survive unscathed and inherit all of your company's wealth. I love when people don't let things like facts get in the way of their mission.

Does he actually believe he refuted anything here, or pointed out some mistake?! The essence of Franklin's quote was that people who would give up their freedoms just to feel a little more “safe” are not deserving of either their freedom or safety, presumably because he realized that often under the guise of “protecting” you those in power look to take more of your freedoms away. And this is precisely what has been taking place in america, particularly after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. [4]

The Code Pink banner shortened Franklin's quote most likely so it would better fit on their banner. However, the point is that the essence of the quote has not been changed and the many privacy invasions by the government is likely what these women were protesting in the picture. His Martin Luther King “quote” is just pure stupidity. It should be obvious to anyone with an I.Q. over 70 (sadly this likely rules out Viceroy Magnus) that his MLK “quote” carries the complete opposite message of what King stood for, while Code Pink's Franklin quote has retained its meaning, even though they shortened it dramatically.

After this last example of hair brained stupidity he begins making fun of, and insulting people in, other pictures of Code Pink members. Below one picture of an elderly woman he writes, “Fat, Old Waste of Space.” He then posts more pictures, this time of the wacky right wing Christians who stand on the street corners holding signs that say things like, “Pray for More Dead Solders,” and “Thank God for IEDs.” [improvised explosive devices]

After all this he finally gets to discussing Kassie Dill's video. He whines,

Now on the the grand finale. Naturally I could go on and on forever. However, a friend recently sent me a video that pissed me off greatly. It is the video I talked about in the opening of this article (if you still remember it). This video is of a woman who spends ten minutes detailing why she does not support the troops. There are many videos of disgusting American scum saying why they do not support the troops. I picked this particular one because it was the first one I watched. (Note, after finishing this, I did some more research and found out that this woman is actually a pretty prominent voice against troops. Her name is Kassie Dill and she has appeared on television and other media outlets numerous times). What I will do is show you the video right now, then I will do a point by point commentary on why almost every one of her points is incorrect and based on ignorance and propaganda.

So viewers don't have to go to my other blog post to watch the video here it is:



Immediately after posting Dill's video Viceroy Magnus writes,

So right off the bat we see that her name is Liberty Chick Live. An already annoying name seeing as how she is not do these videos live and doesn't value liberty. Anyway, the first thing she says is about clearing up the misconception that she does support the troops, it is just the war/administration/etc that she does not support. She makes it perfectly clear that she does not support the troops ALONG with the war, current administration, etc. OK, so that is not bad so far. She is entitled to her wrong opinion. She is so hell bent on not supporting the troops that she declares that she supports absolutely NOTHING the troops do.

Before I continue though, I want something cleared up. When a person refers to "troops," I take it to mean any person that has ever served in the military of the United States. I do not mean just those who have and still serve since 9/11. That being said, I can't speak for how everyone else defines "troops." For the purposes of this article, we will use my definition. OK, so she refuses to support anything the troops have done huh? Well, here is a list of things, in no particular order, that the troops have done that she might support.

He starts off with some pathetic insults and then has a list of nine things he claims troops have done that she should support. He writes,

1. Fought the English so we could be our own country. Without the troops, none of us would be American. We would all be English. I, for one, love my straight, white teeth and American Football. So this alone makes it worth it to support the troops.

This is just a ridiculous “reason.” I certainly don't care that I'm “american” and this is nothing more than pathetic and illogical ethnocentrism, and I certainly don't support that. I doubt Dill would either.

2. Ended World War 1 and 2. (There is so much more that can be said about this alone but I will resist).

Regarding WWI the U.S.'s policy was supposedly one of “neutrality” but Woodrow Wilson seemed to enter the war for largely economic reasons and not for any kind of defensive or humanitarian reason. [5] Due to the unethical reasons for entering the war in the first place, I don't see what's so great about their ending of it.

Regarding WWII it's crazy that he actually believes anyone should be proud that the U.S. used two atomic bombs on Japan in WWII. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was due, not for any needed defensive purposes, but purely for political reasons. Because of this, 100,000 civilians were killed. The U.S. didn't want Russia to invade Japan and wanted Japan to surrender to the U.S. so they could be the occupier of postwar Japan. Historian Gar Alperovitz noted a diary entry for July 28, 1945 by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as “most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.” [6] The former Assistant Secretary of State, Archibald MacLeish, “spoke critically of what he saw in the post [WWII] world: 'As things are now going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping, a peace, in brief...without moral purpose or human interest...'" [7]

3. Killed Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Moammar Gadaffi to name a few from this century. I suppose this lady could think of a better way to help save the lives of the millions of citizens struggling under the oppression of these terrible men. Maybe next time we should just kindly ask them the step out of power. We can even sweeten the pot with some organic honey butter soap and toasted rosemary figs wrapped in cage free chicken breasts. Give me a fucking break.

On the contrary, he needs to give me a fucking break. Let's take a look at a few facts.

First, if the united states was truly against fascism and dictators why in the world would the U.S. support dictators, such as Muammar Gaddafi, as just one example of the dictators the U.S. has supported? Second, it wasn't even the U.S. who killed Gaddafi but the Libyan rebel forces themselves! [8]

It's amazing how he credits the U.S. for saving the lives of “millions” when millions of innocent civilians were killed in these wars. In the war against Iraq alone, since 2003, approximately 113,318 civilians have been killed (accessed 11-25-11). And for mostly political reasons as I explain below.

In the case of Hitler, the U.S. “had done little about Hitler's policies of persecution. […] it had joined England and France in appeasing Hitler throughout the thirties.” In fact, “Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, were hesitant to criticize publicly Hitler's anti-Semitic politics; when a resolution was introduced in the Senate in January 1934 asking the Senate and the President to express “surprise and pain” at what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and to ask restoration of Jewish rights, the State Department “caused this resolution to be buried in committee.” [9] After the U.S. finally decided to enter the war against Hitler (even after ignoring the many deaths of innocent Jews) Hitler actually committed suicide and wasn't killed by american forces as Viceroy Magnus claims.

Regarding Benito Mussolini the U.S. “declared an embargo on munitions [to Italy] but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war.” [10] He wasn't even killed by any american forces, but by fellow Italian Walter Aduisio at the behest of National Liberation Committee.

Osama Bin Laden's actions were because of the united states' oppressive and murderous actions in the Middle East. Essentially, the U.S.'s foreign policy caused the September 11th attacks so Bin Laden's murder was no true victory of any kind. [11]

Saddam Hussein was actually aided by the U.S. in the 1980's and was even given military intelligence and “stores of materials that could be used to develop biological and chemical weapons.” [12] Even the war against Iraq in the 1990's was for political and monetary reasons. George Bush went to war because it was felt that a great offensive would cause his popularity to rise in the polls since an election was fast approaching. [13] Several nations also benefited from this war in another way, although this reason was kept from the public. “Shortly after the war, as representatives of the thirteen oil-producing nations were about to gather in Geneva, the business correspondent of the New York Times wrote: 'By virtue of its military victory the United States is likely to have more influence in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries than any industrial nation has ever exercised.'” [14]

It's more than clear that the U.S. largely goes into other countries for political or economic reasons and not for any kind of “humanitarian” reasons. Out of this list the only individuals actually killed by the U.S. was Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. In some cases, such as with Hussein, many people believed that the people were better off before the U.S. intervened and caused so much havoc, such as United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.

This fact was even mentioned in the November 28th 2011 episode of DemocracyNow! when they played a video of a talk by a former government insider, Wesley Clark, admitting this was the U.S.'s plan for several years before 9/11 to go into several countries and destroy their governments, such as Libya (which they did this year), and Iraq. They simply used 9/11 as a pretext to carry out their plans of domination. To quote Glenn Greenwald: “Clark said the aim of this plot was this: 'They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.'” (emphasis mine)

4. Defended the Alamo from Mexico. 'Nuff said there.

I'm shocked he's proud of this since those men who tried to defend the Alamo, such as Davy Crockett and James Bowie, were doing so in order to uphold their “freedom to own slaves.” [15] Therefore, the U.S. was essentially supporting slave holders during this war.

5. Thousands of troops across the globe are immediately sent to aid any area in the world affected by extreme natural disasters. Typhoons, earthquakes, tornado, flood...none of it stops us. Whether it is our country or not, we will help you and even give you our food and clothes if you need it. Troops are some of the most selfless people around. This is especially true when it comes to natural disasters in our country. The National Guard has been helping rebuild cities ruined by natural disasters since they have been around. Yet according to this lady, these humanitarians are the same people who get their rocks off by slaughtering babies.

In some cases this is true, though more often than not the U.S. military is used as a tool for the political and financial elites of the country for their own interests as I've already discussed. In other cases the military severely botches any “aid” that they might attempt or the government politics overrides any aid they seek to give. The Christian Science Monitor reported in an article titled, “Humanitarian Aid Is Not a Military Business,” that “Under a military-controlled relief effort, humanitarian assistance can easily become a tool of war. Hostile forces might see aid workers as easy targets and allies of the occupying force. Moreover, the neediest Iraqis may never receive assistance if their needs don't match the Pentagon's political goals. The reconstruction effort is likely to lack international legitimacy and financial support."

"In Iraq, the US use of humanitarian aid as a political asset threatens the efficiency and equity of aid operations. The Pentagon, overruling the Department of State, has asserted the right to organize postwar reconstruction in Iraq. It created an Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance that will have the military imprimatur on every aspect of rebuilding—from political institutions to the food aid Iraqis receive."

"Aid workers from international charities can follow along the Pentagon script or they can operate at their own considerable risk. The Pentagon has even made plans for these aid workers to wear US military-issued identification badges—something the workers see as an affront to their values as well as an unnecessary risk in a still volatile region."

"The Pentagon plan poses monumental ethical and practical challenges to aid groups. The two bedrock principles of humanitarian assistance are neutrality and impartiality."

"Neutrality means that organizations do not take sides in a conflict. Impartiality means that need is the only condition for determining who receives aid—not political affiliation, ethnicity, or any other criterion."

"Aid organizations obviously lose their neutrality if they operate under the direction of the US military. Humanitarian aid also loses its impartiality if politics, rather than need, determines who receives aid. On the ground, that might translate to the military preventing aid workers from assisting non-liberated zones, for example."

"Adherence to impartiality and neutrality, even in an imperfect way, is a practical asset to aid workers, in addition to the ethical value. Being viewed as US allies makes them easy targets for Iraqi guerrillas. "We don't want our workers compromised by having military protection," said an official of Save the Children (UK) earlier this month, as debate in the international aid community formed around the Pentagon's emerging plan."

"Many organizations, such as Oxfam, have already stated their refusal to work under the US military. Some aid organizations, however, will do so. These groups may reap valuable contracts and international visibility for their organizations. By doing so they will relinquish any pretense of neutrality and impartiality, however.”

The article concludes, “The Afghanistan conflict in 2001 showcased military incompetence in humanitarian aid distribution. In a crude bid for political influence, the US dropped individual food packets from airplanes in remote areas of Afghanistan. The only value of these token distributions was for US propaganda. Even the propaganda backfired after Afghan civilians mistook yellow unexploded ordnance for the yellow food packets. In other instances, the media reported on warlords hoarding the food packets and selling them for a profit."

"Similar stories of military mismanagement and inexperience are already emerging from Iraq. In Umm Qasr, children daily contract preventable diseases from dirty water. Rather than focus on unglamorous tasks of health and sanitation, however, US troops built a very photogenic plastic playground for the children of Umm Qasr. News photos of US soldiers sharing their rations with grateful Iraqi families cannot replace the need for technical expertise to feed millions of malnourished civilians." [16]

6. Troops slow drug trafficking across our borders. Did she forget that the Coast Guard members are also troops? I don't think one person in the Coast Guard has ever gone to Iraq and killed anyone. These men fight a different kind of war. They fight a drug war on the seas. But I guess this lady would rather have Mexican drug cartel members control our country by having the Coast Guard become obsolete enabling the cartel to bring all the drugs they want.

Ah, yes, the “War on Drugs.” This started as mostly a pathetic government-run attempt by cigarette and alcohol manufacturers to block the sale and use of intoxicants that were cheaper and, in some cases, less harmful as in the case of marijuana. Millions of peoples' stolen tax dollars are used to incarcerate nonviolent individuals simply for using a substance that harms no one else but its user. The government spends millions on a pointless crusade and jails millions of innocent, peaceful people. The “War on Drugs,” or more like the War on Innocent People, has been a huge failure. [17]

7. Help control our borders. Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is not Hispanics crossing that is the biggest issue. It is terrorists sneaking in to our country via our borders. Who controls the borders? Border patrol and occasionally local help from volunteers and the National Guard. Many people who are in the border patrol are veterans...

More conservative nonsense about “illegals.” Why am I supposed to be proud of, or support groups who, kill or imprison innocent people who are simply trying to gain a better life for themselves? This is nothing more than a form of racism and it's disgusting. The U.S. is, after all, a melting pot of various cultures and always has been. It's sad that pure racism is driving these anti-immigration laws all over the country in 2011.

8. ...In fact, many policeman are veterans too. So the next time she needs help from a cop, she should ask him/her is they are a veteran. If the cop is, then she should not accept their help. He is probably a more proficient cop because of the training he received, which would enable him to perform his job better, which better serves you. But never mind that, because she does not support the troops.

Yes, and the same kind of abusive practices you can find by soldiers are also done by cops. Police brutality, misconduct, and corruption are rampant throughout america and also the world. See my series called The Lucifer Effect.

9. The vast majority of people in our country have been in the service, know someone in the service, or have been affected by the service in some way. So for you to say you don't support the troops is like basically insulting the majority of Americans directly. Enough about this list. Let us get back to thrashing the ignorance profusely spraying from the bridge troll's snarled mouth.

This is a pointless objection. Of course I'm not going to support anyone who has carried out, or stood by, during the countless acts of brutality at the hands of soldiers or cops (since he'd like to place cops in the same category), no matter how many people that includes.

Talk about 'profuse ignorance.' I've disproven most everything he's said thus far. Viceroy Magnus continues with his nonsense. He writes,

She goes on to say that those in the military don't really know what they are doing. We think we are patriots for a good cause when in fact we are pawns fighting for oil companies and big businesses. Now, this may be true to a certain extent. But there are several factors that she probably never considered. For one, there are MAYBE a handful of people in this country that knows what the President knows and what his cabinet knows. These people know things that none of us will ever know about. Therefore, all the reasons behind each war and conflict may never truly be known by the general American population. I seriously doubt that any President would just start a war because he had a hunch. I am sure that the data showed that it was necessary, at least in some way, at the time.

This excuse is priceless! PRICELESS!!! He even admits this is true but then be backtracks and argues that maybe there is this secret reason that only those high up in the government know about... Talk about an ad hoc argument. There is no supporting evidence to support this conclusion. And what was it that Viceroy's Magnus' blog said about providing evidence?! It seems to me that he doesn't even try to live up to the standards he wants others to follow. Hypocrite.

He continues,

Another factor is that we do not really have much of a choice. Sure joining the military might make you think that we should know that shooting someone is a possibility. However, there are uniformed service members who never receive weapons of any kind (Chaplains, etc). People join the service for all kinds of reasons. Once you are in the military, the President is your ultimate boss. If he says go fight, you go fight whether you believe it or not. I joined during a time of peace and still served through 9 years of war. I didn't quit when conflict broke out. That is the pussy thing to do. If you do not go to war, you go to jail, get dishonorably discharged, and have your life ruined. Of course, they have what is called a conscientious objectors which say they do not believe in war so they get a free pass to leave the military. As a side note, if you join the military, then cry conscientious objector, you should be raped by armies of fire ants. What idiot joins the military and doesn't believe in fighting? (Chaplains excluded). Seriously, they should all be punished in some way for being so stupid. Anyway, all service members are free to desert their command and leave. While that is certainly a choice, it is not one that many would be willing to make. I would personally shoot every person in any other entire country in the face, if it meant saving one American from dying. Not an American like this bitch, but a real American. A person who works hard for an honest days pay and is too tired from working to make pretentious YouTube videos.

More nonsense and attempts at deflecting blame. I already addressed this in my response in a previous blog post. I wrote, “It appears you support the murder of people and it appears you wish to place blame on others instead of the actual people who pulled the triggers. That's a common method of disassociating yourself from the people you've killed by blaming someone else (read On Killing, by Dave Grossman). Of course, the fact is that it was the ones who pulled the triggers who are the real murderers. They could have listened to their conscience (if they even have one) and left the battlefield and refused to kill, but they didn't. I find that final statement of yours to be morally reprehensible and sickening. You can defend and deflect your actions all you want but if you pushed the button or pulled the trigger you are a murderer.”

As far as “conscientious objectors” thousands were put in prison for refusing to go to war during the first and second World Wars and the Vietnam war. [18] Hardly a “free pass.”

Even the Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 90, it says very clearly that if one “willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior officer” they can be punished by death (in a time of war) or court-marshaled.

Next she says that troops should know why we are fighting and what they are fighting for. Well let me explain just a few things to you. For one, the majority of the military is men aged 18-24. Men are aggressive and enjoy competition. We want to beat the shit out of anyone that hurts us. The more you hurt us, the more we want to fuck you up. And 9/11 hurt real bad. She says that we shouldn't be able to use patriotism as a reason to fight wars. Well guess what, we don't. We fight wars because our President says we do...period. I have known plenty of troops that were against the war but fought in it. It is our job, not our choice. This lady acts like the military is a religion or something and at any time, we can just change our minds and become anti war liberals. It is a job we volunteered to do, for whatever reason, and it is how millions provide food for their families. Active duty troops is a very small portion of what the Department of Defense spends it's military budget on. Millions rely on military funding for jobs which allows people to earn a living. Never mind that though because, according to Liberty Chick, we should eliminate the military altogether which would increase unemployment to somewhere in the 20-30% range. It is starting to sound like this lady is a terrorist herself. Plus, I am only a minute and a half into the video.

More nonsense excuses about how men are naturally aggressive. This does not excuse the common brutality by service members. He continues with the same bullshit excuse as earlier, but it doesn't fly. Something immoral that is done even by the orders of some authority is still immoral. He further doesn't even seem to understand what the hell Dill is talking about when she argues that those that decide to go into the military should know, with the help of all of the independent media, about the governments' selfish agendas and manufactured reasons when it comes to these wars, but they fight anyway. He misses her point entirely.

Another blatant error is he erects a strawman when he writes,

Never mind that though because, according to Liberty Chick, we should eliminate the military altogether which would increase unemployment to somewhere in the 20-30% range. It is starting to sound like this lady is a terrorist herself. Plus, I am only a minute and a half into the video.

This is a lie. She never said any such thing about doing away with the military in the entire video, let alone within the first minute and a half of it. She was only discussing her disgust about how the military is being used to expand american power and influence.

He continues,

Included in the above paragraph should be this; she is viewing all of this through the magical power of hindsight. Where was this bitch in March of 2003 when the war started? I can tell you where I was; I had been sitting in Kuwait for a month waiting for the word on whether we were going to fight or not. Anyone can criticize the past because of hindsight. If I ran over a nail and flattened my tire, I can now say that, had I drove on another street, I wouldn't have flattened my tire. But we do not have time machines so this type of behavior is utterly useless. Why state the obvious? What matters is that the war is here. Whether or not the war should have ever happened is completely irrelevant and pointless to talk about because it is here. That can not be changed. Hell, if correcting the past with hindsight was possible, there probably would have never been any wars and we could all eat granola bars while singing kumbaya around an eco-friendly warming lamp. (No more fires because they cause global warming and if it gets too hot, polar bears will have no glaciers to lay on).

I do not know what Dill thought in 2003 but those who were properly informed should have known that the war was being waged for entirely bogus reasons. Some journalists were exposing George Bush's war propaganda and his lies about “weapons of mass destruction” the very year the war started such as James Bovard in his 2003 book Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. Therefore, Viceroy's Magnus' pathetic excuse about “hindsight” is baseless.

He writes, “Whether or not the war should have ever happened is completely irrelevant and pointless to talk about because it is here. That can not be changed.”

This is complete bullshit because if information that comes to light, even if it comes a short time after an action has begun, that counters your current beliefs it's only logical and moral to stop any actions you're engaging in and examine the new information before continuing to make sure you weren't in error. However, the contrary evidence was ignored and millions died, mostly innocent civilians. [19]

She says that since WWII, 90% of casualties were unarmed civilians. Well, that is technically a lie. however, what she includes in her figures is those civilians killed by both sides of each war, along the slaughter/genocides of innocent people, typically by the people we are fighting. The Germans slaughtered over an estimated 6 million Jews. This number is now thought to be on the low side. She includes this number in her figures which is radically unfair since we did not condone this behavior and in fact, ended it. Kassie doesn't support the ending of the slaughter of the jews though, you know, since troops did it. If it were up to Kassie, she would have helped fill the gas chambers, fucking Nazi bitch. Saddam Hussein attempted a genocide with the Kurds. We stopped that too. Millions of innocent people were dying and we stopped that. I guess human life has no value to Kassie unless it is a straight, American liberal life. Also, I just found out that she runs a homophobic Christian group on YouTube called Alliance of Christ, or AoC. I won't provide a link because I don't want her videos to get a lot of traffic, but if you must check it out, bash her. Whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong, homosexuals are now allowed to openly serve in the military. Therefore, if you support the troops, you have to support ALL the troops.

*Note: Anything I say about Kassie can be forwarded and applied to those that think like her. She is a voice and speaks for many people who agree with this troop bashing philosophy so this goes out to all of you that agree with this asexual succubus. (Also, I am willing to bet that her boyfriend, if she is not a lesbian, is a 105 pound man with the palest skin and he probably works at Whole Foods). But enough of the personal attacks.

I'm not sure what he's talking about Dill supposedly “includ[ing] in her figures is those civilians killed by both sides of each war, along the slaughter/genocides of innocent people, typically by the people we are fighting. The Germans slaughtered over an estimated 6 million Jews. This number is now thought to be on the low side. She includes this number in her figures [...]”

I found some references about Dill and this Alliance of Christ on the web and what he says about her might be true, though I couldn’t confirm Viceroy's Magnus' allegation about hating gays. However, I did find on her blog her obvious hatred and opposition to Planned Parenthood and she seems to believe that 9/11 was an “inside job,” which I think is ridiculous. I didn't look around her blog too much and I didn't realize she was a theist or held such nutty views. Her views certainly aren't entirely logical or consistent (she's anti-authoritarian about government but accepts another form of authoritarianism: theism) and I disagree with her about a lot, but I do agree with her on her stance on the military and government. But the video under discussion isn't about her other views, but about her views on the military, which I'd say is an ad hominem attack on the part of Viceroy Magnus.

After looking at Dill's sources she cited a UNICEF report and it doesn't mention a damn thing about the Jews or the Holocaust. Viceroy Magnus is outright lying here and he calls her a Nazi based on his purely imaginary accusation! Fuck you Viceroy Magnus! What? What was that? You expect everyone who comments on your piece of shit blog to cite facts? He writes,

Let's only use new, relevant facts. The newer the facts the better. Also, if you are going to argue against us, don't being that weak crap. Get off your ass, do your research and honestly debate us […]

I've shown over and over again how this ignorant asshole doesn't even bother to practice what he preaches!

Next, she says that service members must fall into 1 of 3 categories. Here they are.

1. They must be dumb. She claims that since information is so readily available, that you have to be really really dumb to join the military without knowing what the war was REALLY about. Well sister, if you think service members are stupid, then I got news for you; percentage wise, the military has a higher IQ, more discipline, better job prospects, a more secure future, greater networking, and more loyalty than any company I know of. Sure 10% of service members are fuck ups, but doesn't that go for any group of people? Take all of America. 1 out of 7 has gone to jail in America. Go to familywatchdog.us and type your address in. It will show you the 300+ sex offenders that live within 20 miles of your house. The percent of criminals in the civilian population greatly exceeds that of service members. How is that possible? Well, to get in the military, you need to pass many, many physical and mental tests, training regiments, written exams, and much more just to be accepted to try to be a service member. To be an American, you just need to survive birth. The screening process never stops in the military either. We are forced to maintain that level or we will be forced out of the military. The U.S. has no such standards. Also, there are many jobs in the military. Dozens. They range from engineers to pilots to everything else. Every job requires you to pass a test in order to be able to accepted for your occupation. Then, you must go to school and be trained on how to do your job. Lastly, you sit through weeks of training a year to be able to maintain that occupation. Very few civilian jobs require much more than a social security number. Back to the list. If you think I am dumb Kassie, I invite you to have an open YouTube, Facebook, phone, or any other type conversation about this topic. If you accept, I hope you bring your A game.

Looking at Viceroy's Magnus' arguments I don't think Dill would even need to bring her C+ game. He completely went around her argument. He stated it correctly in the first few sentences so maybe he's not as smart as he'd like to think because he didn't even answer it! I didn't bother to fact-check all that nonsense he said about those who go into the military as having higher I.Q.'s and whatnot. However, one thing I know isn't true is his claim that those who go into the military have “better job prospects” and “a more secure future.” A quick internet search brought up an article from 2009 titled “Iraq War Veterans Struggle to Find Jobs.” [20] What's this about bringing facts to the discussion? And those in the military supposedly have “more discipline?” Where was that “discipline” when those military men in the “Collateral Murder” video were having fun killing innocent people? Where was the “discipline” when all those jackasses in the military at Abu Ghraib prison tortured those people? [21]

2. The troops are evil serial killers who found the perfect job. She makes a valid point. Any serial killer would be more than happy to get paid to kill all the people they could. Just one problem though, we are screened so heavily that it is truly rare that a person of that caliber could be allowed to serve. Sure it has happened. Comparatively, the FBI says that there are around 50 active serial killers in the U.S. at any given time. Sure that seems like a small number, but any more than 0 is too large for me. Plus, that is just serial killers. That doesn't include the thousands of other criminals waiting to kill, rape, steal, or cut you. The point is that what we are talking about is war. War is the combating of two or more parties whose intention is to eliminate the others or to make them surrender. It isn't about who is better at poker or some other bullshit. Therefore, when you are in war, it is necessary to put yourself in a mental situation that enables you to feel no remorse for your opponent. You must be able to kill without it bothering you or it could possibly get you and your squad, team, platoon, etc killed.

Therefore, ensuring your survival is of the utmost importance. Sure there have been mistakes in war. Some people lose touch with reality, soldiers return home and find the war has affected them deeper than previously thought. Even aircraft pilots make mistakes. The optics aren't the greatest for viewing details. It isn't like every aircraft is equipped with a 60 in LED TV in HD. Here is a video she referenced as the brutal slaughtering of innocent people:



If you watched the whole video, it did seem like a few of them had weapons. In fact, some of them did. But here is what you don't know...what happened before this video was shot? What was said in the War Room? Was this mission in a known hostile area? What was the goal of the mission? There are many things that need to be taken into consideration before you automatically assume that every service member is a psychopath. When you are in a war zone, those people are your mortal enemy. They are trying to kill you. It is either you or them. The pilot here even thought he saw an RPG. He did what was necessary to protect his life. He made a bad call but was not ever disciplined because it what he did was within the realm of his responsibilities. While bad, it was an accident. Kassie acts like American's are incapable of mistakes. Many troops in every war have dies as a result of friendly fire incidents. Mistakes happen, except to Kassie, because she claims to have never been morally compromised. These pilots in the video are talking casually but that is because no one can be tense for the entire time they are deployed. How do you expect them to talk? Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie? Thought so. Have you ever been in stress for 6-18 months straight with no break, in the middle of the desert with the nearest family member thousands of miles away? Then shut the fuck up. Since you think this only happens in the military, how many times have you heard this exact story about cops? A cop thinks he sees a gun and it they waste a kid, only to find out it was a candy bar or sandwich. Does that mean that all cops are serial killers? Why aren't you bashing them? Oh because your professors and the internet only brainwashed you to hate the troops, not real societal problems.

More ad hoc excuses about secret meetings and alleged intelligence about the area in question. Most of those guys' hands were clearly empty and one of them was a reporter with a camera, not a weapon! This has been confirmed. The man's name was Saeed Chmagh. It was hard to tell in the video but the other man who was clearly carrying something may or may not have been armed. And he appeared to be the only person even holding anything in the group that was fired upon! I saw the man with an RPG peeking out from behind a building but that's not who they fired upon! I never even saw that guy again. They fired upon several unarmed men in the front of the building!

Then he rants about Dill liking cops but not the military, but I'm sure she dislikes cops just as much as the military. It just wasn't the subject of her video.

When he says, “These pilots in the video are talking casually but that is because no one can be tense for the entire time they are deployed. How do you expect them to talk? Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie?” I'm not sure what he's referring to. She never mentioned anything about “how” those in the military should “talk.” Likely he was just hallucinating again...just as he hallucinated that this response was any kind of a challenge.

Speaking of which, who are you to talk about the military anyway? You have never served nor have you fought in a war. What gives your opinion so much credibility? The biggest reason Kassie pisses me off is because she says all troops, like we are all replicas from the exact same mold. We come from all over the world. Yes Kassie, people without an American birth certificate can join the U.S. military. She says stupid phrases like all troops are dumb and love to kill, blah blah blah. Well Kassie, less than 1% of the entire military is in an occupation that is designed for combat only. Infantry, grunts, Special Ops, Recon, Green Berets, SEALS, etc are only a tiny, tiny portion of the military. In fact, most service members will never fire a hostile shot or ever see an enemy. Many service members never even leave the U.S. Therefore, this entire video is vapid and trite. You are talking about maybe 1-3 people in all of the military. Compare that to the thousands of rapists, killers, child abusers, etc that run rampant through America. If you don't believe me, go to familywatchdog.us again. There are probably more sex offenders in your state than there are total active duty members in the entire U.S. Military. So maybe civilians should be the ones getting bashed. Why can't you control each other? Those number are outrageous. How is it that you attack the troops when everyone around you is way more fucked up?

Given the fact that there are numerous cases of members of the military abusing and murdering people his figure of “1-3” people in the entire military who love to kill is completely ridiculous. Yes, there are many people who join the military who do not see any battlefield, however, they still willingly joined an organization that kills innocents and I would consider many of them to be accomplices to murder in many cases.

My favorite part of the whole tape is when she says, and I quote, "You're given a badge of honor, and this is true...you're given a badge of honor for stabbing someone to death who did nothing." On what planet does someone get a medal for that. This woman says it is true! That one statement alone is all you really need to know she is a fucking idiot.

This is probably the only true statement this guy has written throughout his entire rant. I couldn't find any information about this alleged incident. However, his calling her a “fucking idiot” because of a few mistakes (like he said himself above people are human and make mistakes... don't be a hypocrite now...) he dismisses everything she said. Well, I looked up each of her claims and all but three I verified as factual.

Then she says she has veteran friends. She told these friends that if she could save their lives, she wouldn't because she doesn't believe in what they do. Some friend huh. I can already tell she is lying. No Real Man or veteran would ever be friends with such a fucking idiot.

She never said any such thing. What she actually said was, “I have friends that have joined the military; it's been against my wishes. I said, you know what, as a human being, as your role as a friend, whatever, I support you, but your role in this, in what you're doing, your role as a soldier, no I don't support you. If you get into a bad situation because of it I'm not going to help you out; I want nothing to do with it.”

Did she say a damn thing about not saving anyone's life?! No. I'm not sure what she was referring to but she didn't say anything that can be construed as allowing someone to die. Throughout this stupid, brainless rant Viceroy Magnus has repeatedly put words in Dill's mouth and I find that to be highly immoral. He is lying about this woman.

You may have noticed that she said there are three types of people that join the service. Well, in the video she only names two (another reason why she is dumb). She says we make the choice to kill. We are unethical and evil on purpose. Then she jumps on the holier-than-though express and proclaims that she has been in morally compromising situations a lot and never bowed to pressure. Sure. If that is so, let's see how intact that hymen is. Thought so bitch. Gotcha!

This comment is disgusting. It's also ridiculous because just because a woman doesn't have an intact hymen doesn't mean that she's “loose.” Jackass... And who is the stupid one here? His other lapse of thought here is that Dill did state three reasons. She said her categories were that those who join the military are 1) Dumb; 2) Evil; or 3) Morally Compromised. Viceroy Magnus obviously didn't watch the video very carefully. Either that, or he's the dumbass and can't count.

Lastly, she says that we view others as less than us which enables us to kill terrorists, children and innocent people all the same. To us, Iraqis are lesser people and they don't love as strongly so it is OK to kill them. This is what she says and believes. Can it be any worse than this type of person? Don't you love people you have a never ending flow of diarrhea pouring from their mouth and none of it has any real substance. They might as well be tape recorders, regurgitating verbatim, all the propaganda they hear off liberal extremist sites.

This idiot didn't even engage her statement. It's a fact that the military dehumanizes those it will fight in battle. This is why in the military the “enemies” were called “gooks,” “Krauts,” or “Nips.” “In Vietnam this process was assisted by the 'body count' mentality, in which we referred to and thought of the enemy as numbers. One Vietnam vet told me that this permitted him to think that killing the NVA and VC was like 'stepping on ants.'” [22]

First hand accounts prove that degrading the “enemy” is a tactic that has been used throughout military history and could even be witnessed in the “Collateral Murder” video.

We service members do not need your approval, or your support. We do not need your thanks, care packages, or yellow ribbons. People do these things as a way of saying thank you. It also honors those who have fought for over 230 years for our country. People do these things because it feels good. I doubt any service member has ever asked someone to thank them or asked someone to clap for them on a plane. I have never gone to a bar and asked a guy to buy me anything because I was a troop. We volunteered to do this job because it is the right thing to do. Serving your country reaps no better reward, even if you never leave American soil. Doing your part is what makes America so great. Why is it that when John F.. Kennedy Jr. famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" everyone freaked out and wanted to help the country in anyway. Whether right or wrong, they stood together. The rest of the world saw this and became terrified of us. In fact, that unity is one reason why no major conflict happened as a result of the Cold War. Now, we have people like Kassie. People do not want to support our troops or country, yet want to enjoy all of the freedoms associated with it. If you look throughout history, every time we are in a conflict and support for the troops and war is low, our economy and country has been in the crapper (Vietnam, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan). Our nation was glorious when JFK said those famous words and during other conflicts (WWI, WWII, Korean War, Revolutionary War). These wars showed the highest support of troops and coincidentally enough, our economies were pretty good. Hell, WWII even ended the Great Depression. Now, people like Kassie leach off the system until we can't pay our bills, we are in a long recession, our credit rating dropped, and more people are unemployed now more than ever. You do the math. History doesn't lie.

This is just ridiculous. The fact is wars create wealth for the top one percent in a country but everyone else still suffers. That's the historical reality. [23]

I could write more but what is the point. These people are so jaded that nothing can undo the damage that their civics professor did in the first place. Weak minded people are molded easily, like fresh play dough. The rest of us are solid and unscathed, like titanium. Kassie, what have you done to better the world other than sit on your hemp bean bag chair and talk? Go out and contribute to the world. Seriously, what has all your protesting time accomplished? We are still at war and nothing has changed. So thanks for wasting your life while the rest of us continue to make America the beautiful, illustrious place we all know and love. ALso, if you don't like America, GET THE FUCK OUT! It is that simple.

Ah, yes, the good 'ol “love or leave it” nonsense. The fact is that all governments act in this manner so where are people like me and Kassie going to go? If we moved we'd just be speaking out against the atrocities of another government. So he can shove that crap back up his ass where it came from. And he can shove the rest of this pathetic rant right up there along with it.

Funny stuff. The people who are molded like “play dough” are people exactly like ignorant and hateful old Viceroy Magnus here and other people like him. People like me and Kassie are true freethinkers who speak out against hate, needless violence, unfairness, war, unchecked government power and abuse, and the list goes on. People like Viceroy Magnus seem to think all this is OK; that it's for our “safety” or some such nonsense. What's nonsense is this propaganda Viceroy Magnus and people like him blindly swallow and it's sickening. Absolutely sickening. As I've shown Kassie and I are the ones with the facts on our side. It's Kassie and I who hold the moral high ground. And it's Kassie and I who try our best to educate simpleminded buffoons like Viceroy Magnus about what's really going on, but they continue to trot out the same nonsense and propaganda that people like Kassie try so hard to dispel.

With his last paragraph Viceroy Magnus proves just how much of a sexist asshole he really is when he writes,

P.S. Kassie, In all fairness, I wanted to tell you about this organization that was around in 2003. You might be very interested in it and you actually fit the profile to a T. It is called "Operation Take One For The Country". It involved women who would go to bases where men were about to deploy and they would have sex with them and a way to say thank you and good luck. No strings, no diseases, just guilt free, mutual, casual sex. Just a thought. I'm sure there are some guys who would love to try to fuck the stupid out of you.

Perhaps, Viceroy Magnus, someone needs to knock the stupid out of you? If ever that were possible...

Conclusion
After going through this entire waste of gray matter I've learned that Viceroy Magnus can't write for shit. He's highly illogical and hateful. He's proven himself to be a sexist, wannabe macho man asshole, who needs to take a long walk off of a short cliff. He's a symbol of everything that's wrong in this country and is a poster boy for the stupid, ignorant, patriotic people who support the government, the wars, and the troops.

I've shown that Viceroy Magnus has not even come close to adhering to the standards of facts and evidence that he demands of others. He is an unethical murderer, and is also a sexist racist. It's sad that we have so many of these illogical, morally compromised, racist, and sexist individuals living among us. No wonder this country is going down the drain... We have immoral war mongers running the government and we have immoral, racist, dullards in the general population!

Your “challenge” has been met and completely destroyed....jackass.



References

1. http://www.realmenhavespoken.com/2011/11/if-you-dont-support-troops-fuck-you.html (accessed 11-21-11)

2. Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, by James Bovard, Palgrave, 2000

3. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, by Noam Chomsky, Metropolitan Books, 2003

4. Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, by James Bovard, Palgrave, 2003

5. A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present, by Howard Zinn, Harper Perennial, 2005; 361-362

6. Ibid.; 423-424

7. Ibid.; 414

8. Wikipedia.org: Muammar Gaddafi - accessed 11-25-11

9. A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present, by Howard Zinn, Harper Perennial, 2005; 409

10. Ibid.; 409

11. Terrorism and Tyranny, by James Bovard; 289-298

12. Ibid.; 290

13. A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn; 594-595

14. Ibid.; 595

15. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James W. Loewen, The New Press, 1995; 144

16. Link is in the body of the text. Article accessed 11-25-11

17. Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, by James Bovard; 199-216

18. A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn; 418, 485

19. Terrorism and Tyranny, by James Bovard; 311

20. Iraq War Veterans Struggle to Find Jobs - accessed 11-26-11

21. Wikipedia: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - accessed 11-26-11

22. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, Back Bay Books, 1996; 161

23. A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn; 407-442

Real Men Don't Murder People

Arizona Atheist vs. David Marshall

In October of this year I decided to copy a document I'd written titled 10 Errors in the Truth Behind the New Atheism into the Customer Discussion forums of Amazon.com. Not surprisingly David Marshall arrived to give a response almost a month later. As usual, he resorts to his usual nonsense by claiming I can't read and whatnot, when it's clear I pointed out cases where he couldn't read or failed to conduct proper research.

This list is only a very brief sample of the issues I uncovered in Marshall's book. For the full treatment please read my extensive review of his book.

I have copied each post in its entirety with Marshall's replies in blockquotes with my replies in regular font.

Here was my initial post:

The Truth Behind the New Atheism (Harvest House Publishers, September 1, 2007) is a Christian apologetic work by David Marshall that aims to refute the New Atheism as a whole. Despite many errors being pointed out by skeptics such as myself and others, Marshall has refused to admit a single error even when they're as plain as the nose on his face. Sure, as he's told me a few times, he has admitted a few typos and whatnot but that's not what us critics are complaining about. We're talking about bona fide factual and logical errors on his part. Many of these are undeniable and he still refuses to acknowledge them. We're not sure why he does this. Perhaps it's an enormous case of confirmation bias? Perhaps it's something to do with his ego? Either way, Marshall is definitely as stubborn as they come at admitting mistakes.

This was written to give anyone who may be curious about the book a quick guide to a handful of the errors Marshall makes and to expose his dishonest rhetoric. You may even be familiar with Marshall from participating at the Amazon.com Customer Discussions. Marshall seems to mostly hang out at the The God Delusion forum where myself and other critics have tried in vain to point out an error - any error - that Marshall may actually admit to, but to no avail.

I hope you enjoy this brief exposé of The Truth Behind the New Atheism.

1. Marshall claims that Richard Sternberg was "shunned, lied about, and kept from doing research" because he allowed a pro-intelligent design paper to be published in a scientific journal. (42)

The only truthful statement here was that Sternberg allowed a paper on intelligent design to be published in a scientific journal. What Marshall doesn't tell you is that Sternberg had ties to Meyer and the intelligent design movement. He also bypassed the proper peer review process and published the article himself. There is a lot to this story so that's all I will say about it and I will direct you to an excellent article on the subject by Ed Brayton: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php

This lapse of Marshall's research is continued throughout the entire book. Even though information was available about the incident at the time of the book's writing (even the emails countering these very allegations) Marshall failed to find out the other side of the story and swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. I wonder if Marshall will realize the irony about this and his insistence that "human testimony" is a reliable method of getting information? Doubtful.

2. Marshall argues that Richard "Dawkins admits his own intention to 'focus on,' or intrude in, other peoples' families." He also accuses Dawkins of believing that "children have a right to be indoctrinated into thinking [religions are] all evil, no matter what their parents say." (184-186)

Nowhere is this ever stated in any of Dawkins' writings, in fact the opposite is found. Allow me to quote from The God Delusion, page 327:

"If, having been fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence, they grow up and decide that the bible is literally true or that the movements of the planets rule their lives, that is their privilege. The important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they shall think, not their parents' privilege to impose it by force majeure."

Dawkins is expressing his belief that you should educate a child, not indoctrinate like many religious types do. Of course Dawkins does not want to stop anyone from doing anything. His only goal is 'raising consciousness' of his view that the labeling of children is child abuse, not that teaching them religion is. Even in The God Delusion Dawkins makes specific claims about how children should be taught about religion, though should also learn about science too, and not be exposed to just one view point so they can more freely make up their minds once they're able to.

When directly asked in a 2003 interview if he'd want to stop children from learning religion he stated quite clearly,

"Well, I wouldn't want to have the thought police going to people's homes, dictating what they teach their children. I don't want to be Big Brotherish. I would hate that."

I don't think you can get any clearer than that. What Marshall says about Dawkins is an outright falsehood.

3. Science confirms the genesis account of the universe having a beginning. Marshall writes, "The Book of Beginnings says the universe came from nothing. We have tried alternative theories: everything from an egg, elephants all the way down, 'cosmic crunch,' 'steady state' - but the biblical idea of a cosmic origin has now been vindicated." (55)

If Marshall would have read up on what cosmologists and physicists have been working on the last twenty years or so he would have found out that the conclusion that there was a singularity, thus a beginning, follows from the theory of general relativity, however back in the 80's it was realized that general relativity breaks down once you begin to talk about the size of the universe before it expanded and quantum mechanics must be used to determine its behavior. When this is done there is no longer a singularity and the equations allow for an infinite past. When you take quantum physics into account there is no longer any beginning. Stephen Hawking said as much about twenty years ago in his popular book A Brief History of Time. He writes,

"[...] I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account." (pg. 67 in updated The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking, Bantam Books, 1996)

4. In the first chapter Marshall plays the typical apologist language game when he tries to argue that faith is synonymous with reason and evidence and cites a variety of sources to prove his point, from the bible to Michael Shermer (out of context by the way). On page 18 Marshall cites Isaiah 1:18, "Come let us reason together!" and argues this is an example of the bible supporting "reason, empirical facts, and experiment." Though, when you read the entirety of Isaiah this has nothing to do with testing some proposition or looking for evidence, but of god trying to convince his followers to obey him! Slyly, it seems, Marshall neglects to tell his readers where this passage is from and it's clearly being taken out of context.

5. Similar to the bible quote being ripped out of context Marshall did the same thing to the popular skeptic Michael Shermer in his book Why Darwin Matters, from chapter 3. Marshall fails to give an actual quote of Shermer's and simply claims that he says Christians are rational in their beliefs. Marshall writes, "Both answers, [people claim design to be why they believe in god] Shermer (a leading skeptic) recognized, are essentially rational." (24)

This is clearly not what Shermer was saying. Marshall takes Shermer out of context, and he didn't seem to bother to read the rest of the chapter. While Shermer does admit that many of these beliefs are "powerful intellectual justification[s]" for belief in god, Shermer goes on for several pages explaining why humans seem to see themselves as believing for rational reasons, while at the same time projecting emotional reasons for belief upon others. He goes on to explain how evolution seems to have primed humans to perceive design in the world, even when it's not present.

Shermer then goes on to explain the deep flaws in the design argument, showing that these beliefs about design are actually flawed when looked at more closely. If Shermer truly believed these arguments were based on reason, why does he spend the rest of the chapter explaining why 'design' is not a logical argument for god?

6. When attempting to deflect blame from Christianity for the killing and persecution of witches in Chapter 9 Marshall claims, "Even atheists and skeptics such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin advocated the killing of witches, the latter of whom wanted it done in the slowest possible fire." (161)

While both of these individuals did profess their dislike of witches neither of these men were atheists.

In the case of Hobbes he has often been accused of atheism because of his anti-religious views and his harsh criticisms of the church, but one must remember that even Deists did such things during the Enlightenment. Just because an individual is a materialist or dislikes religion, that doesn't make one an atheist. In response to Bishop Bramhall's criticism in his book, The Catching of the Leviathan, wherein he called Hobbes an atheist, Hobbes responded with the following,

"Because he does not so much as offer any refutation of any thing in my Leviathan concluded, I needed not to have answered either of them. ***Yet to the first I here answer, because the words atheism, impiety, and the like, are words of the greatest defamation possible.*** And this I had done sooner, if I had sooner known that such a book was extant. He wrote it ten years since, and yet I never heard of it till about three months since; so little talk there was of his Lordship's writings." (emphasis mine)

Regarding Bodin, his views are also very much misunderstood, but it seems he was not an atheist. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says of Bodin's beliefs,

"During his youth, Bodin received a Catholic education and he remained loyal to the Church until his death. Demonstrating his religious convictions, in a testament from June 7, 1596, he requested to be buried in a Catholic Church. Nevertheless, during his middle years, he was critical of the church hierarchy and occasionally expressed antipapal sentiments. On the basis of this evidence, his biographers have quickly labeled him a Protestant. Yet in his Lettre à Jean Bautru des Matras, a text based on his youthful religious ideas, it is clear that Bodin was not a pure Protestant, but rather a critic of the Roman Catholic clergy, its hierarchy, and some of its doubtful religious practices. Bodin was a fervent believer in the "true religion" which he considered "nothing other than looking to God with a purified spirit." [...] His antipapal sentiments, interspersed throughout his writings, have provided historians with evidence to label Bodin a Protestant."

Clearly, neither man could be considered an atheist, and given their religious backgrounds and the religious cultures they were immersed in, it's not too surprising their views on witches.

7. In his conclusion to the 11th Chapter Marshall writes,

"I see no evidence that the world will be better without God. We can try to persuade ourselves Communism was a fluke, that it was "lack of reason," not faith, that sent a third of the world into a murderous tailspin. We do share "deep conscience." But the logic of ideas - you only go around once, moral relativity, we're all material girls and boys, man as a "survival machine" for genes, survival of the fittest, the relativity of morality, [didn't he already say this?] the tendency to exalt government to the throne of God - can and do subvert what we know is right." (206)

In one of his attempts to prove that secularism is bad for a society he cites the likes of Alfred Kinsey and Margaret Sanger and argues their scientific findings influenced society for the worst. He writes, "If Kinsey was the father of sexology, Sanger can be seen as the mother of the single-parent household - though she spent her own spare time chasing lovers across oceans." (204)

If secularism was truly bad for the family unit wouldn't we find that the most religious countries have the most stable families? On the contrary, we see the opposite.

Which countries host the most number of households that contain both parents? How does the united states, one of the most Christian countries compare to some of the least religious countries? Once again, Marshall would rather spew his propaganda than look at the facts. In 2007 the percentage of both parents living together with their children in the united states was roughly 70%. In some of the least religious countries, such as Finland the percentage was roughly 95% and in the Netherlands the percentage was roughly 83%. (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KcbtdAX8EPk/TkGVMKJSlpI/AAAAAAAACqU/dSNhX-dLqB4/s1600/Single%2Bparents%2Bby%2Bcountry.jpg)

In complete contradiction to Marshall's argument Sociologist Phil Zuckerman points out this fact,

"If this often-touted religious theory were correct - that turning away from god is at the root of all societal ills - then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty and disease and most religious countries to be models of societal health."

"A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries - those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics - are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations - wherein worship of god is in abundance - are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor and destitute."

8. Again in the 11th Chapter Marshall accuses Alfred Kinsey of skewering his results because he included too many pedophiles and prison inmates in his sampling and came out with an inflated percentage of homosexuality. Marshall writes, "His research methods have been panned for poor sampling (too many prison inmates and pedophiles) and gross ethical lapses. His results - he claimed ten percent of males were homosexual - inflated margins at the expense of the center." (204)

In actuality, this is false. The criticism of Kinsey's sampling has been addressed by one of the fellow researchers, Paul Gebhard, who in the 1970's removed all "suspect data" (prison inmates and pedophiles for example) from the results of the percentage of homosexuality and surprisingly came out with figures that were very close to the original. The original percentage was 37%, while Gebhard's newly figured percentage was 36.4%.

This is just a brief sampling of several simpler errors made in the book as there are many more. Many of the errors would take an entire page or two in order to fully expose so I tried to include errors that could be easily summed up in few words. However, I believe that these few errors alone do well to expose Marshall's lack of scholarly ability. This handful of errors is a symptom of a much larger inability or unwillingness to check the facts and/or present the oppositions' views fairly and accurately.

Note: While I was writing this post I discovered that Marshall's comment was deleted by Amazon.com on November 19, 2011, but I copied it before it was deleted. I'm not sure why it was deleted. He's made more crude remarks to me in the past than he does in his reply below. Oh well. Serves him right for being a jerk all the time.

Here is Marshall's lame response:

Ken: Don't become obsessed: it's bad for your mental health. Go on to other things. No one is buying this book right now, at least not in English, and I have other things to attend to.

But having a little free time at the moment, I'll respond to your allegations quickly:

(1) Why are you so obsessed with Sternburg? This is a very minor sub-issue of a sub-issue of a sub-issue. Admittedly, I accepted his account of the persecution, given that (a) the US House of Representatives seems to have found evidence of same, (b) I've seen so much hatred expressed towards ID proponents, including justification of exactly the same sorts of persecution, that it fit the larger pattern, and (c) the man probably does know what happened to him. The issue here, though, is not admitting an error, but taking the time to verify again on a very minor point, just because some Internet fanatic happens to be obsessed with it. Of course it's possible that Sternburg lied about the experience; it's more probable both sides are seeing things through the prism of their own commitments. Since nothing important stands or falls with the difference, and I'm not reediting the book right now, I have no reason to check into it further right now.

2. "Marshall argues that Richard "Dawkins admits his own intention to 'focus on,' or intrude in, other peoples' families." He also accuses Dawkins of believing that "children have a right to be indoctrinated into thinking [religions are] all evil, no matter what their parents say." (184-186)

"Nowhere is this ever stated in any of Dawkins' writings . . . "

Yes it is, and I quote him on it directly.

"In fact the opposite is found . . . "If, having been fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence, they grow up and decide that the bible is literally true or that the movements of the planets rule their lives, that is their privilege. The important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they shall think, not their parents' privilege to impose it by force majeure."

This is hardly the "opposite" of what I say Dawkins says -- it is the very same thing! By being "fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence," Dawkins means being brainwashed into his own worldview, as I show. That is hardly the "opposite" of teaching kids religions are evil -- surely you are not so illiterate as to really think that!

"When directly asked in a 2003 interview if he'd want to stop children from learning religion he stated quite clearly . . . "

And why was he asked that question? Obvioiusly, because I'm not the only person who read GD, and found his pernicious comparisons between Catholics raising their children to believe Catholicism, and child abuse, disgusting.

"Well, I wouldn't want to have the thought police going to people's homes, dictating what they teach their children. I don't want to be Big Brotherish. I would hate that."

But if, as Dawkins says, teaching children the Bible is WORSE than child abuse, shouldn't that be the government's duty? We DO send the police in, in cases of child abuse. Why should we let parents get away with what is even worse?

It's not his critics fault if Dawkins can't make a clear argument without contradicting himself.

"I don't think you can get any clearer than that. What Marshall says about Dawkins is an outright falsehood."

Nonsense. I wasn't rebutting his interview, I was rebutting his book. Again, its not his critics fault when Dawkins contradicts himself.

3. Science confirms the genesis account of the universe having a beginning. Marshall writes, "The Book of Beginnings says the universe came from nothing. We have tried alternative theories: everything from an egg, elephants all the way down, 'cosmic crunch,' 'steady state' - but the biblical idea of a cosmic origin has now been vindicated." (55)

"When you take quantum physics into account there is no longer any beginning. Stephen Hawking said as much about twenty years ago in his popular book A Brief History of Time. He writes,

"[...] I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account." (pg. 67 in updated The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking, Bantam Books, 1996)

This, too, is just sloppy reading. First of all, Hawking clearly implies that most physicists do not agree with this idea -- that is why he is "trying to convince them" of it. Secondly, I said THIS universe has been shown to have a beginning. It has. I did NOT say that all material reality has been proven to have had a beginning. We are talking about the origins of THIS universe.

"4. In the first chapter Marshall plays the typical apologist language game when he tries to argue that faith is synonymous with reason and evidence . . . "

That's not my argument. I've written enough on the subject already. If you still haven't gotten it right, you probably never will.

"5. Marshall takes Shermer out of context, and he didn't seem to bother to read the rest of the chapter."

Yes, I did. I read the whole book, parts of it multiple times. And I cited Shermer accurately.

"While Shermer does admit that many of these beliefs are "powerful intellectual justification[s]" for belief in god, Shermer goes on for several pages explaining why humans seem to see themselves as believing for rational reasons, while at the same time projecting emotional reasons for belief upon others. He goes on to explain how evolution seems to have primed humans to perceive design in the world, even when it's not present."

Of course Shermer is trying to spin the evidence to assuage his cognitive dissonance at his own results. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people claim rational reasons for faith or not. Shermer shows that they do, thus refuting Dawkins' and Harris' point. Read MY quote in context, for heaven's sake.

For the hundredth time, the issue in this chapter is emphatically NOT whether faith is in fact based on good evidence, but whether what Christians mean by "faith" presupposes evidence in theory. How often to I have to explain this simple fact to you? The distinction should not be that hard to grasp, even for you.

"6. When attempting to deflect blame from Christianity for the killing and persecution of witches in Chapter 9 Marshall claims, "Even atheists and skeptics such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin advocated the killing of witches, the latter of whom wanted it done in the slowest possible fire." (161)

"While both of these individuals did profess their dislike of witches neither of these men were atheists."

Your quote from Hobbes does not prove that, only that Hobbes recognized the accusation of atheism as a "defamation" in his society, which of course it was. Many scholars believe Hobbes was, in fact, an atheist. He was certainly one of the fathers of the Enlightenment, so-called, and my reference is therefore pertinent to the point, if of minor importance.

I didn't say Bodin was an atheist; the grammar of my sentence only requires that of one of them.

7. "In complete contradiction to Marshall's argument Sociologist Phil Zuckerman points out this fact,

"If this often-touted religious theory were correct - that turning away from god is at the root of all societal ills - then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty and disease and most religious countries to be models of societal health."

Here Ken again just misreads me. I do not, in fact, claim that "turning away from god is at the root of all societal ills." Ken does not seem capable of reading and accurately representing my arguments, and to answer all his erroneous representations grows more and more tedious.

"8. The criticism of Kinsey's sampling has been addressed by one of the fellow researchers, Paul Gebhard, who in the 1970's removed all "suspect data" (prison inmates and pedophiles for example) from the results of the percentage of homosexuality and surprisingly came out with figures that were very close to the original. The original percentage was 37%, while Gebhard's newly figured percentage was 36.4%."

This is just incoherent. If my charge was "false," why did Gebhard need to remove "suspect data" that didn't actually exist? Ken implicitly admits my charge was actually quite true, but claims that it doesn't matter, for some reason.

Nor does he explain what 37% is supposed to be. The only percent mentioned in the quote he gives of me is about the percent of homosexual men. Is Ken claiming that 37% of all males are gay? He seems to have gotten lost in the toolies on this one, too.

"I believe that these few errors alone do well to expose Marshall's lack of scholarly ability."

Heh. Coming from Ken, that's some insult.

Given contrary views expressed by professors at schools like Oxford, Marquette, Duke, and Baylor, I'll trade that in for a nickel and see if I can get a cold cup of coffee for it.

Here is my most recent reply:

David! Hello. So nice to see you. I'm flattered you're so concerned about my health but rest assured I'm feeling quite alright. I had actually written this up about a year ago and decided to post it for curious potential buyers.

1. Obsessed with Sternberg? Heavens, no. This is one gaping error in your book and is a [perfect] example of your lack of research for the book. You failed to consult the emails that started off the entire affair, which contradicted the false allegations by Sternberg. Your blustering, in looking for an excuse for your failure to look into the matter, by saying that perhaps both sides' versions of the story may distorted is falsified by the emails I mentioned. The facts are layed out in the link I gave. There was actually only one person who was very angry at Sternberg (and it's Sternberg, NOT SternbUrg) and he was the curator of the specimens at the museum. The reason he was angry was because when Sternberg would borrow his collections he wouldn't take care of them. The curator was angry because Sternberg allowed the specimens he took so much time to care for to basically rot in his office and he failed to return them when he was supposed to. There was no persecution here. He had a legitimate reason to be upset. And in the emails this one individual was the person who was most hostile and others told him to calm down. Some conspiracy, eh? One person who was angry at him and for a very good reason.

2. Wow... That's an amazing ability you have. You're able to read "brainwashed into his own worldview" into "The important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they shall think, not their parents' privilege to impose it by force majeure." No, Dawkins is very clear on this point. Children are to learn of the scientific evidence and learn about religion and make up their own minds. That's so far from "brainwashing" that I'm speechless. Brainwashing entails a forceful viewpoint being thrust upon someone without allowing contrary views to be learned. The complete opposite of Dawkins' view, but quite in line with what some religious parents force on their children.

Marshall says, "But if, as Dawkins says, teaching children the Bible is WORSE than child abuse, shouldn't that be the government's duty? We DO send the police in, in cases of child abuse. Why should we let parents get away with what is even worse? It's not his critics fault if Dawkins can't make a clear argument without contradicting himself."

You and many others have actually taken Dawkins out of context. This was an "off the cuff remark" that Dawkins blurted out during a lecture and simply used this personal story as a segue to his actual point, which was the psychological harm of scaring young children with threats of hell and punishment. It's not that raising children in a religious environment in and of itself can be equated with the harm of sexual abuse. Dawkins writes, in context,

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. ***It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience. [...] But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic.*** At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents' church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. (emphasis mine)"

It should be more than clear. Dawkins was relating this story because of a letter he received from a woman who believed that the beliefs about hell that were forced upon her were worse than the sexual abuse she endured. He wasn't making any kinds of arguments with this statement. He was using her as an example of the cruel nature of forcing stories of hell fire on children.

3. Sloppy reading? That's funny considering the fact that Hawking's book was written in the 80's and now a days the consensus is that the universe had no singularity due to the reasons I explained. You're relying on outdated ideas. You're referring to this universe you say? Funny... you don't mention that anywhere in your argument.

4. Poppycock. You clearly argued in your book that "In the Christian sense, faith means courageous trust in an object one has good reason to see as credible." Judging from this sentence it appears you're trying to argue that Christians view faith and reason to be synonymous.

5. More blustering, trying to cover up an obvious error. Shermer was not spinning anything. Yes, Christians give these reasons for why they believe but they are based on faulty reasoning. When looked at more closely it's not evidence for anything as Shermer explains.

6. Your sentence says "atheists and skeptics" - plural - and you cite two individuals Hobbes and Bodin, implying that both men were atheists and skeptics. You're going to defend your sloppy argument by citing an unnamed authority against a direct quote of Hobbes'? If you read the passage in context it's clear that Bramhall accuses Hobbes of being an atheist, which he is clearly offended by. If he was an atheist why be offended? It's clear Hobbes wasn't an atheist since he is also offended by being called impious, which means "lacking in reverence or proper respect (as for God or one's parents)." He was obviously religious judging by this quote. Your poor excuse has no evidence for it and is clearly ad hoc.

7. This is hilarious. What else might this quote imply? "I see no evidence that the world will be better without God. We can try to persuade ourselves Communism was a fluke, that it was "lack of reason," not faith, that sent a third of the world into a murderous tailspin." Even another Christian reader of his book came to the same conclusion and said so in his review. Sol Lobbes wrote in part: "Marshall points out the atrocities that have arisen from societies dismissive of belief in God." 7. (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1XL5C4KAH18DE/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0736922121&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=) Just pretend that's not what he means to avoid owning up to it. Sadly, he does this often.

8. Marshall misses the point here entirely. Marshall argues that Kinsey's use of prison inmates and the like skew the percentage of male homosexual activity in society. However, I point out the fact that Gebhard took these "suspect" individuals out of the sample and the percentage of homosexual activity still held despite this adjustment. Therefore, Kinsey's use of these "suspect" individuals did not harm or bias his results, as Marshall tries to argue.

As any readers hopefully have seen Marshall's over reliance on authority often causes him to have skewed views and this is never more sure than those "experts" who favored his book. Keep in mind, these weren't the most serious errors he made and they are by far not the only ones.

After this initial back and forth between Marshall and I a forum member commented and we had a discussion about Marshall and his book but since this isn't part of my discussion with Marshall I have not copied it here. However, here is a comment I made to the other member about Marshall's book since it is relevant to this post.

I replied:

Simon,

Here are a few more curious errors of Marshall's. Hardly serious ones but you'll see my point at the end.

1. In his discussion about the Unabomber he writes, "Kaczynski wrote in what became known as 'The Unabomber Manifesto', "There is no morality or objective set of values." Read Marshall's source, Alston Chase's 'Harvard and the Unabomber', and it's apparent he didn't read his source very carefully. Chase did not cite the 'Manifesto', but an essay Kaczynski had written for the psychology professor at the time, Henry Murray.

2. When discussing Richard Dawkins' views on "child abuse" Marshall misreads Dawkins and argues, "Relating a few horror stories to justify the absurdity, he quotes, with (lightly qualified) approval, the following comments by psychologist Nicholas Humphreys [...]"

Sorry, it's Nicholas Humphrey. Drop the 's'. In addition, Dawkins didn't approve of Humphrey's statement.

As Eugene Walker wrote in the comments of his review of Marshall's book (the #1 "helpful" review right now), "My paragraph about misspellings was of course not about them per se, but rather about a pattern of carelessness. Carelessness in details is often accompanied by carelessness about larger matters. So this is at least conceivably relevant, not mere pedantry."

Exactly.

As of November 26th David Marshall has neglected to reply. I don't blame him. His arguments are atrocious and easily refuted. Of course, if he responds at a later date I will edit this post.

Arizona Atheist vs. David Marshall