https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=LwDtY9esaZw
That brings up something that kind of initiated this particular conversation. Richard Dawkins asked a question about why one person can’t change races, but they can change sex or gender, whatever you wanna say. And then that got some blowback and he’s like, well, I retract my question because I don’t wanna be allied with those bigots on the Republican side. And then a bunch of his colleagues this humanist association so-called said, oh, we don’t wanna be allied with Richard Dawkins because he’s a bigot now. And it was an aspect of what we perceive as the dark side of religion, the judgmental side, the part that condemns and casts out and makes a scapegoat and says this is unpure and distances that person. And I went to the humanist website and they had their explanation of what humanism is to them. And it was a bunch of like anecdotes or personal representations that were very, quotidian is the word, very puffed up on these really great sounding ideas. It had all of this very fruitful, we are free from superstition. We can love each other through science and objective reality. And it sounds really good on paper, but it doesn’t taste good to me, but I don’t know if that’s just because my tastes are different than that. What are some of your, because what I saw was that, well, they’re going to impose some sort of religious moral order and they’ve latched onto it with social justice. Social justice has provided atheism and humanism with that moral code scrubbed of all this religious symbolism. What is missing when you get away from that symbolism is some sort of guidance through this structure. I don’t know. What are your thoughts on the end of humanity? I mean, I think that for sure, it’s hard for me not to, I don’t want to be shot in Florida, but it’s just hard for me not to feel that with the new atheist because they kind of brought about this world, but they didn’t realize that it wasn’t enough. Like they just said, let’s just, we just need to get rid of religion and then we’ll all be fine. But they introduced the world to social justice. Like they opened the door to social justice and now they’re getting devoured by their own child, let’s say. Could you just define what you mean by social justice in this context or what they created? Yeah, well, in the sense that atheism isn’t enough, right? You need something. Maybe it could have been something else. It’s possible. But there’s something about this kind of materialism and this kind of revolutionary, because one of the aspects of materialism is that you could say that it’s revolutionary in its very pattern. That is, it’s trying to say that reality stems from below, right, reality stems out of matter and that the patterns are just this superstitious, superimposed thing that we put on there, okay. But this revolutionary way of thinking, it has a reality and it plays itself out, and it plays itself out by a succession of revolutions. And so the social justice is like the final revolution. It’s the last revolution, because it’s basically saying we want to take the most rejected thing and make it king. We wanna identify the most marginalized, most rejected, most strange, most less, the thing that has the less identity possible, the least identity, and then we want to make that the king. But that, I mean, obviously, Dawkins, when he was trying to reduce the world to genes, didn’t understand that that’s what he was bringing about, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. When you try to stem reality from below, it’s gonna play itself out in terms of meaning. And the final version of that is that, so you could say that it’s just another version of the tyranny of the proletariat, right? Just another version of the idea that that which is the lowest has to become king. And so now it’s playing out in terms of identity instead of in terms of social class, but it doesn’t matter. In terms of the story, it’s the same. And materialism is part of that rung, it’s part of that game, even if they don’t realize that that’s what’s going on. Like the absurdity of Dawkins proposal to make the entire world an expression of genes is just so absurd. It’s absurd in the sense that this denial of patterns or this denial that there is a top-down layout of how the thing works. That’s why I mean that it’s just kind of this, it’s funny to watch that him then get eaten by his own process, but in a social manner. Because he tried to avoid the social question. He’s like, I just proposing this biological thing. I’m just proposing the scientific thing. I’ve even heard interviews with him where he says that, oh, when it turns in terms of social questions, I defer to the sociologists and I defer to those people. But like I said, the pattern is happening and it’s happening to you in society. So the version of his selfish gene, of this lower reality, of this like lower reality coming up and ruling over that’s a top-down structure, now it’s playing out in the social fear and he doesn’t see that it’s the same thing. He doesn’t see that now he’s being devoured by his own story. Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah, it’s a tide with a thousand eddies, by which I mean, you take that major revolution of instead of this transcendent raining over the eminent or the bottom, you do that turn first and then it works out on every sub pattern afterwards. Every single pattern. Just like you were saying with the story, how does it work out if we do it here, if I do this privilege politic in this training right here, how’s that gonna work out on every level of my organization? Just for example. Yeah. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it. I’m gonna do it.