Why “No Gods” – How To Avoid Atheist Zealotry

No Mods, No Authors

Please note that this article has been updated since publishing, you can find the final version at the link below.

From C4SS

The current rise of Christian Nationalism in the US has already reaped dire consequences; Roe v. Wade was overturned less than a year ago, same-sex marriage is on the chopping block, and a coalition of literal Nazis, paramilitarists, and theocrats captivate an audience of millions on major news networks. What’s interesting is how this archetypal progression of the current order into the long awaited Late Stage has affected the broader political left (for our purposes, any self-proclaimed “leftists” – legitimate or otherwise). Rather than gaining class consciousness, people have found god – not capital-G God, of course, but a poor imitator designed by campaign managers, mainstream pundits, and the reactionary media machine for the purpose of defending power. The gospel of alt-right bloggers, QAnon conspiracists, and, again, literal Nazis, is not one most people pray to. Most Christians do not, as it turns out, self-identify as Christians to veil white supremacy; when christofascists and their enablers say “God is on my side,” they are lying, deferring the responsibility for their hatred at the hands of all Christians. This is something the Nazis (past and present) have always done: co-opt cultural symbols, religious texts, and political positions, strip them of original context, and incorporate them into their totalitarian worldview. Why else do you think they called themselves national socialists? (Don’t answer that, a rhetorical question)

Here are the stakes; Christian Nationalism is the hot new trend for mainstream conservative figures, and there’s now space for people to identify as opponents to theocracy. What’s the first thing most people intent on inhabiting that space probably identify with first when they hear “anti-Christian Nationalism”? Hint: it’s probably not the second half.

Whose God Is It Anyway?

Jacques Ellul, the late sociologist, theologian, and noted Christian anarchist, had this to say about the biblical God:

“In the Bible, however, we find a God who escapes us totally, whom we absolutely cannot influence, or dominate, much less punish; a God who reveals Himself when He wants to reveal Himself, a God who is very often in a place where He is not expected, a God who is truly beyond our grasp. Thus, the human religious feeling is not at all satisfied by this situation… God descends to humanity and joins us where we are.”

The “mysterious ways” line has been abused to no end, and is rightly maligned when used to justify mass atrocities and personal tragedy, but if we take “God works in mysterious ways” seriously, we must confront Ellul’s main thesis; this omnipotent and omnipresent thing is completely, totally mysterious, a being with His own interests and desires that we can’t predict, represent, or even perceive most of the time. The mystery of God isn’t one we as non-Gods can solve, just as the mystery of any individual’s “nature” isn’t anyone’s concern but theirs. God’s cause is the divine, our cause is our own, and neither can be made general; each is unique.

My argument here is not that Ellul is objectively right on “the God question,” and I doubt any serious “Ellulian” would either. This citation instead serves two main purposes; first, to provide evidence to counter the bad-faith claim that all notions of God are inherently hierarchical (pun absolutely intended); second, to lay the foundation for how to hold self-proclaimed Christians accountable for their alleged belief in “biblical law.”

If God works in mysterious ways, how is it that His position on abortion, homosexuality, marriage, and civil rights can be reduced to unambiguous disapproval? Why do you, a good Christian, think you know what God wants?

These questions cut much deeper than rote demands for proof that God exists because they treat believers as peers who disagree, rather than deluded lessers or conscious grifters. No, this won’t logic anyone out of a belief they didn’t logic themselves into, but that isn’t the point; we’re treating the believer as a person with a complex system of thoughts, feelings, and commitments that, while not necessarily valid or consistent with current scientific consensus, are worth consideration. This is a discussion, not a debate, after all.

Anti-theism: A Case Study in Misdirection

Where the intolerance of atheism is merely implied, anti-theism leads with it. The problem, from the anti-theist perspective, is that belief in religion or the “supernatural” is an inherent threat, therefore any liberatory project needs to be adamantly secular, materialistic, and rational to the explicit exclusion of religion-as-belief to avoid the inevitable creation of a theocracy. Where atheists might acknowledge a domain in which faith can truly be individual, anti-theists condemn all faith as a slippery slope to literal fascism – a trajectory that the US is currently going down for what appears to be this exact reason. To the anti-theist, religion is not something the Church has distorted to its own ends, but rather its logical conclusion, therefore demanding the totally-not-forcible conversion of believers into non-believers through re-education. This is far from a comprehensible account of all anti-theisms that may exist, but from my own conversations with self-identified proponents and general observation, it’s a workable definition.

In my view, this perspective is just flatly wrong, but that doesn’t bother me; people are wrong all the time, a basic consequence of free thought that we’ll be dealing with until our next extinction-level event or the singularity (whichever comes first). What genuinely disturbs me is its persistent incuriosity; its rhetorical appeals to progress and empirical science aren’t made out of a genuine appreciation for nuanced investigation, but out of spite for institutions and individuals that stand in opposition to “secularism.” This might be why so many anti-theists struggle to define “religion” in a way that doesn’t primarily target evangelical Christians, traditionalist Catholics, and QAnon cultists. It’s not impossible for anti-theists to consider frameworks under the banner of “religion” that aren’t hierarchical, though it’s by no means trivial – they’re evangelical atheists, after all, and charitability runs counter to the whole point of anti-theism (i.e. delegitimizing all “supernaturalism” to mitigate the perceived threat it poses). 

Unsurprisingly, the vast contingent of radical socialists, anarchists, and religious scholars from a diversity of backgrounds have a lot of trouble interacting with anti-theists in any serious capacity, as it usually becomes clear that these folks don’t actually care about nuanced engagement with historical record, religious studies, or anthropology. Most often, anti-theism is a misplaced vitriolic reaction to the violence committed by the Church, its abusive Clergy, and its vigilante crusaders that places the blame not on the institutions and individuals involved, but the God they claim to understand.

To be blunt: anti-theists take reactionary zealots at their word when they claim to have read the Bible accurately and insist they’re doing God’s work. This is an abjectly awful way to engage critically with religious texts from any perspective. It affirms the divine status of holy texts, rather than regarding them simply as texts; it grants legitimacy to traditionalists who claim to know the will of God; it implies that Christian nationalism is as good for Christians as it claims to be (a claim falsified by the most cursory glance at the history of religious governance); and it ignores the actual reason why things like traditionalism, biblical literalism, and dogmatism are bad. Secular reactionaries push the exact same bullshit and appeal to the exact same audience as Televangelists and alt-lite youth pastors because, fun fact, all of them are fucking liars. They do not care about being good Christians, they do not care about enacting God’s will, they have not read a full page of scripture in good faith; all they want is for people who do care to fall down the alt-right pipeline. Widening the gap between religion and the left does nothing but help the reactionary cause at the expense of genuine believers.

It would be a stretch to say currently existing anti-theism and the New Atheist movement are a deliberate psyop meant to turn atheists into monsters – so much so it feels scummy to even write that out – but given how easily the “rational skeptics” of the early 2010s slipped into populist conservatism, I wouldn’t blame conspiracists for jumping to that conclusion. The grim reality is that this wasn’t a centralized effort, but rather a misdirection of legitimate grievances into an atheism that enthusiastically embodies that which it seeks to destroy: an evangelical movement that seeks to establish dominion of the right over the wrong.

Why “No Gods”

So, all that said, where does that leave “No Gods, No Masters” as a statement? Is it time for a rewrite?

First, let’s do some contextualization, then we’ll discuss why such a thing isn’t necessary. What we mean by “No Gods” isn’t a literal declaration of “No Gods Allowed,” just as “No Masters” isn’t a slight against doms, child-rearing, or “mastery” of a given skill. “No Masters” voices the desire for a world without rulers, an economy absent capitalist privilege, and a life lived free from systems of power. This is, in most cases, how the full slogan is employed: a vocal commitment to the negation of domination and rulership. The process of conceptualizing and achieving this goal goes beyond strict adherence to this statement, involving many subordinate discussions of economics, philosophy, and institutional structure that may, if read literally, conflict with our snappier platitudes. Need I mention how much blood, sweat, and tears are spent explaining how “anarchy” needn’t be “a state of disorder”? That alone should demonstrate the importance of context in understanding what people actually believe.

With consideration to its present use by anarchists and special attention to context, “No Gods, No Masters” is a statement against authority – whether divine or secular – from which follows firm advocacy of total autonomy for all, the end of the state, and liberation from systems of domination. It does not follow that all religion is therefore authoritarian.

Given the choice between secular -archy and religious -archy, the anarchist sees no meaningful difference beyond the language with which the rulers justify their position. Neither one is being honest about its intentions, it’s all about power.

There are 58 Comments

I agree with much of the author's views. Certainly I do not see the official "materialism" of the Stalinist governments to be better in any way to the official religion of many states throughout history and existing today. I call myself a humanist (which I prefer to atheism, a purely negative label). I disagree with both Bakunin and Lenin in advocating a "militant atheism", a fight against "God", as a central aspect of revolutionary socialism.

For further thinking on this topic, see my “Religion and Revolution.” http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12320?search_text=wayn...price

NO GODS
My no gods is militantly anti-theist, anti-clerical, anti-traditionalist, anti-pseudoscience, anti-conspiracy theory. The belief in the irrational (maybe you prefer the term unintelligible) is inherently a threat to meaningful existing freedom. All religion relies on the indoctrination of children and ignorant adults, and the wearing down of healthy skepticism. Nearly every theistic religion reenforces harmful social constructs, ahistoricism, pseudoscience, and unphilosophical thinking. Theism is the delusion that people have, or have had, some undetectable communication with beings beyond our realm. Whether these beings are some capital-G God (which brings it's own fallacies) or some other spiritual entity, it's existence relies on unintelligent faith, not evidence, reasoning, sensory experience, or any other intelligible method people use for understanding the world.

Once someone has committed to these irrational beliefs, they seek to spread them, further promoting a breakdown of critical thinking in children and other vulnerable individuals. This is why religion is a direct threat to liberty, it is a nationalism based off of shared delusion (as every nationalism is.) Religious organizations arise out of these religious people's desire to further indoctrinate, confuse and coerce people into their delusion. Even when religions are not a blatant front for wealth extraction (the catholic church, Mormon church, Unification Church, etc.) they exist primarily to create new members, and act as a form of multi-level marketing scheme.

Once someone has been tricked into giving up their rational thinking about the world, any number of other conspiracy theories, pseudosciences, and other harmful beliefs open up to them. Take Kanye West for example, his turn to Christianity was quickly transformed into him blatantly spreading the Jewish cabal conspiracy theory. I'm not arguing for a slippery slope fallacy here either, I don't think all religious people are bound to become full on conspiracy theorists spreading harmful disinformation. They do, however, represent a breakdown in the critical thinking of the individual which can lead to other unintelligent breakdowns.

Kanye was a Black fascist, reactionary blowhard before his switch to Xianity. Pretty sure he was also already antisemitic too. He's the new Farrakhan afaik, but as a billionaire this makes him more dangerous.

Can't believe so many people hooked by such an hyper-normie asshole. He had such a terrible influence on younger gens that I'm wondering if he ain't a CIA op.

By your formulation, “belief in the unintelligible is inherently a threat to meaningful existing freedom.” So freedom only exists if nothing is inaccessible to human intelligence?

Freedom will always exist. Tricking people into believing in faulty methods of attaining knowledge is a threat to those people’s freedom.

My no gods is a militant catboy like Daddy Stirner! We're, like, the same but individuals uwu!

Rational, logical, scientific, thinking is to be encouraged. Although non-religious thinking has often been pretty irrational. I gave the example of Stalinist "materialism."

Beside logical thinking, there is also thinking using symbols, metaphors, analogies, ceremonies, and aesthetics. One aspect of this is art. Art is not right or wrong, although it can express truths. Religion too is an effort to "understand" the world and to express that understanding, through symbolic thinking. It is bad only if it is confused with rational and scientific reasoning. It is dangerous when someone feels that their "God" gives them the Absolute Truth, which permits them to stomp on everyone else (the same is true of Marxism, without a formal "God").

I image that in a free, post-capitalist, post-revolutionary, society, the present-day religions may well die out. But I also think that people will always seek to find meaning in life and express it through symbolic-metaphoric means, call it religion or philosophy or art.
Again, these issues are discussed further in my article to which I previously gave a link.

No capitalists, no state authority, no fictional diety.

Reason is wise, and as a reasonable person, I therefore am wise as well.

I do not doubt your wisdom. But while I do not believe in "original sin," I do believe that people are imperfect and will always be imperfect. I am sure that, over the generations living in a free, rational, and caring society, there will be great improvements in humanity. But perfection will never be achieved.

In fact, this is one argument for anarchism: there are no perfect people (saints, angels) who can be trusted to rule over everyone else without making mistakes or doing bad things. Therefore we need a stateless society, cooperative, decentralized, pluralistic, and open.

Wayne, Is it okay to let ourselves enjoy the mass murder required to rid out future stateless society of the people that do not agree with us? Can we have a annual celebration day to commemorate the deaths of, likely, around half the current population? Should we first try to reprogram their thinking so that they agree with us or can we get straight to the murdering?
I can not to hear their screams and feast upon their entrails by firelight as we erect our stateless society upon their bones!

!Should we first try to reprogram their thinking so that they agree with us or can we get straight to the murdering?"

I'm not Wayne and this is a great question that bears asking to anyone supporting wars or any other murderous authoritarian violence.

Personally I'd see something in between, as anarchists won't likely be having the stable, reliable enough social net to be pretending having a better programming to bring to the normative people (a.k.a. the Little Eichmanns), but also often not even having the organizational means for it.

And yet, of course, people can't really be held accountable for the bad programming they got, as it was within systems of control they somewhat relied upon for a *living*... but ideological fanaticism that makes them destroy other people's lives? I guess maybe?

"Personally I'd see something in between ..."

Fuck off, centrist!
Choose Sides, Get Organized.
KILL KILL KILL!

Like all popular movements, whether it Trumpism etc, it usually has a binary opposite adversary, e.g. antifa/woke consciousness. And the propaganda evolves, now the powers that be are using "Green Cleaning" to conceal their obvious destruction and perpetuation of environments.
Likewise, the right leaning corporate/capitalists formerly had a predominately leftist binary opponent, and their arguments could probably best be aligned with the same claim to cleansing corruption with their "Social Cleaning" propaganda including wars as a right to social justice. Just fraiming this human sovereign quality as a "right" immediately identifies its claims for justice as suspect and still enclosed by an authoritarian State architecture.
It is important that anarchism does not develop this leftist warlike stance in its developement and expression.

their obvious destruction and perpetuation of environments.--should be ---- their obvious perpetuation of the destruction of environments.

You (OAO) seem to believe that a transition to anarchism would require killing half the world's population.
Personally I am afraid that capitalism and its states will do more mass killing than that. The nuclear bombs which are ever more wide spread, the developing ecological catastrophes--if not stopped these will wipe out humanity and our animal and plant fellow species.

I don't know what it would take to abolish capitalism, states, and all oppression. It would require some sort of revolution, but does it mean much killing? Anarchists have always believed that it is possible to eventually win over the big majority of humanity, based on its self-interest as oppressed people who are threatened by the exterminism and exploitation of this system. If I did not believe this, at least as a possibility (not an inevitability), then I would not be an anarchist.

Would you still be an anarchist if you aligned yourself with NATO to kill more efficiently and tried to convince others that it was acceptable and then kill those that opposed you and then ejaculated every time you thought about it afterwards? Hypothetically.

Is it just me (lol) who thought this sentence by master Wayne > "I don't know what it would take to abolish capitalism, states, and all oppression. It would require some sort of revolution, but does it mean much killing? "
,,,for an instance seemed to be sarcastically composed as a naive child's query, but then on reading further, realized that it WAS INFACT Wayne making a genuine enquiry, thus throwing significant concern regarding his actual ideas and knowledge of the free anthro-anarch spirit.

Noooo, its not just you, but I'm just like into the anarch epiphany phenomena, i.e. you can be any of the majority of humanity who are enmeshed socially within an overpopulated oppressive system just to survive, and an idea, a piece of music, or a poem will induce an "anarch epiphany", and so anyone could potentially become an anarch instantly.
Authentic anarchy does not need doctrine , war or killing, simple 101., however some psychopathic fascists MAY have to be put down!
Does that answer your question Wayne?

The 4-Point Price Platform:

1. Align with NATO
2. Rally "anarchist" protestors online for War!
3. ???
4. "Abolish all oppression."

5.Begin calling Western capitalist entrepreneurs "oligarchs".

7. Have a statue of oneself sitting in an armchair similar in size and pose as the statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial erected alongside it.

8) Become the Dictator of the Proletariat and impose martial law and compulsory conscription for ALL people over the age of 16 in gender/race segregated camps and form a politbureau of 1% of the nation's megalomaniacal ruthless population to assist in the maintenance of the ruthless totalitarian nation by executing all Stirnerians!

At first I assumed that the posters who questioned whether an anarchist revolution would kill half the world's population, were anti-anarchist or anti-revolution or both. They seemed to be saying that anarchism was not possible or desirable, since it would require mass murder. To this I answered that (1) the current system is already threatening mass death, unless it is replaced, and (2) I don't know just how bloody a revolution would be (this would require a lengthy discussion; there have been revolutions which were mostly nonviolent).

I don't know if they are the same people, but some posters are now denouncing me for supporting the Ukrainian people in their war of self-determination and self-defense against Russian invaders (a view held by almost all Ukrainian anarchists). This is labelled as "align[ing] with NATO." They do not label their own opinion as "aligning with Russian imperialism"--which it is. I prefer to think of my views as aligning with the Ukrainian workers and oppressed.

You seem to think that the mass killing of Ukrainians would stop if only the Ukrainians stopped fighting for their national self-determination. This is terribly naive.

During the Vietnamese-US war I did not think of myself and my comrades as "aligning with the Soviet Union," although the Vietnamese took arms and aid from the Soviets. Now we do not give support to the Ukrainian state, its capitalist class, or its imperialist supporters--they are our enemies. But we support *the people* who are fighting for their lives, their communities, their families, their political and cultural independence.

the people! the people! you know....THE PEOPLE!

Wayne is the fish that sings when you hit the Ukraine button on anews. I'm beginning to think this is an semi-elaborate script function written up by someone.

Pull out the cork, Wayne. You're strawmanning. Over half of what you imagine your anon detractors saying in your lengthy, rote tirades was absolutely not said. You're playing victim again just as you play hero and play anarchist.

Thank you for your service in ending the Vietnam war. Surely your empty platitudes, I mean online solidarity, on niche anarchist websites will help The Ukrainian People, whom all agree with your position, win the War Of Self Determination and Self Defense By Using NATO Weapons Against The Russian Imperialism.

Kropotkin! Bakunin! Makhno! Amen (and awoman)!

Honk Honk accuses me of exaggerating: "Over half of what you imagine your anon detractors saying ...was absolutely not said." Ah, but they do not say *which* half was not said! What did I get wrong?

Are you denying that "Lame Price" accused me of "Align[ing] with NATO" and so did Anon 22:29? Are you denying that the Ukrainians are fighting a "War Of Self Determination and Self Defense ....Against The Russian Imperialism"? Are you denying that you reject the Ukrainians taking arms from NATO even when there are no other sources of arms? (as Spanish anarchists sought arms from France, Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union). Just how do I distort anyone's views?

Are you trying to convince people you're correct about these sophisticated things but still can't figure out how to thread your replies after all these years? Seems pretty sus, Wayne.

But to add my 2 cents to your goofy question, Yes, I reject allying with my enemies.

Let's examine your question, Wayne. Would you work with the FBI to do damage to the KKK? I'll wait.

is a win-win situarion, the war in Ukraine is not. Relatively few bombs would be used in an FBI vs KKK war and collateral damage would be minimal. Such a figjt benefits everyone else targetted by either group. It it starts it shoild be stoked ar hot as possible.

By comparison, the war in Ukraine includes area bombing and conscription. Almost all of both Russia and Ukraine would benefit from Putin rhrowing in the towel.

If Putin and Zelinsky were just trying ro assasinate each other and kill each orher's cops wirhout attacking xivilisns or using conscripts, only rhen would this be like a fight between the KKK and the FBI.

The subtlest of subtle analogies for the win! The so-called logic of those who claim being pro-war is fully compatible with anarchist philosophy and principle is truly astounding. Luke, do you know that Ukrainian conscription also exists? That while thousands of Russians flee abroad to avoid being called up that the Ukrainian state made emigration of military aged men impossible from the beginning of the current invasion? Now look, I'm not saying that therefore the Russian state is less nasty than the Ukrainian, but rational analysis requires our eyes to be wide open and out thinking caps to be on straight.

Wayne from DC?
Luke Price?

The question is obviously about anarchist principles. Is the enemy of your enemy your friend? What if that enemy is a terrible, horrible monster? What is that terrible, horrible monster is NATO? How low can you go?

We are in agreement on one thing:Zelinsky's goverment does not have a right to reaort to conscription.Not only is it a crime against unwilling soldiers, it also forces those who are on the front line intentionally to trust unmotivated conscriprs with their backs.

When I myself am in rhe field even against enemies armed with clubs and knives such as the Proud Boys, I am damned glad to know everyone I am out there with is as motivated as I am. Back on Dec 11-12 2020 in DC, had I been sent to scout Harry's Bar (Proud Boys hangout a mile behind fash lines) with a draftee "wingman" on the other bike, I would have sent them home and run rhe mission solo to protect both them and myself.

If the people of Russia had forced.Russia to abandon comscription and the same happened in Ukraine, Ukrsine would have been the net beneficiary as it is easier ro recruit people to defend rheir own homes than to blow up someone else's. Russia's weapons are no better.than Ukraine's so they can forget high-tech force multiplication.

Entering a "war of choice" that has turned into trench warfare is especially unattractive. Kill conscription and Putin will never find enough mercenaries or volunteers, he would be forced to make peace. Ukraine would get far more recruits. Every Putinite bombing raid and atrocity would send more volunteers to the front on Ukraine's side.Force him or both sides to legalize deserton too and this war would be over in a week. Do so only in Ukraine and every unit becomes smaller but lighter, faster, and more maneuverable. It does not take huge numbers to hold a trench, and using huge numbers to attack an entrenched position is the stupid way.

"When I myself am in rhe field even against enemies armed with clubs and knives such as the Proud Boys,"

Luke has achieved his final cartoon form. Impressive. +10 resistance to blunt force trauma.

Honk Honk (the goose) declares, "I reject allying with my enemies." The problem with this over-generalization is that, as anarchists, who is not our enemy? Not only authoritarian imperialist aggressors but also bourgeois-democratic capitalist states defending their nation's independence. Not only imperialist invaders but their imperialist enemies who want to take advantage of the invasion to get their own licks in. Not only capitalists but the bureaucrats who run the unions. Not only white supremacists but the opportunists who dominate African-American organizations. And so on. I am *not* being sarcastic; these *are* all our enemies! It is indeed a sell-out and betrayal to adopt the slogan, "The enemy of my enemy is [always] my friend." But it is also a betrayal to refuse to maneuver and look for allies where you can get them, for whenever you can get them, because "I reject allying with my enemies."

These are all generalizations and worthless except in the concrete analysis of a specific situation. As for choosing between the FBI and the KKK, I go with Luke's response. ( I wonder at Fact Checker's nerve in saying that Luke "post[s] personal attacks here." After all the personal attacks rained down on Luke and myself!)

Don't quit your day job to write speeches. The repetition does not have the impact you may think it does. It simply shines more light on your wishy-washy, unprinciples, non-anarchic position.

"it is also a betrayal to refuse to maneuver and look for allies where you can get them" = 'It's okay to work with the FBI and NATO'.

All these 4-d mental gymnastics and talking out of both sides of your mouth must get exhausting. How do you find the time to lick so much boot?

How dare you continue to call Luke and mineself trolls. These personal attacks must stop if we are to defeat Imperialism.

OMG, this is sooo 1950's inverted McCarthyism, like a time capsule from Cuba. Wayne and Luke need a Che-esque berét and beards to complete the simulation. It's like a political satire only real, thus NOT funny.

What is real!?

You think your neolib normie capitalist hipster bullshit is less simulated?

HELLO THERE!!!

What is fake?

You think your leftist syndicalist herd strugglismo bullshit is less simulated?

GO AWAY!!!

I manipulated ALL the spooks so to bring you into a fold, of u believing me being either ideologically-charged impersons... and now I can crush you with my cold nihilist grip in that paper fold.

But I am the pure resident anarcho-nihilist of this site, and your simulation of being a nihilist is absurd, because REAL nihilists don't play tricks on folk!

Maybe I should elaborate on what fun is for a nihilist¿ Dating your mom!

It's glaringly obvious that the raging war in Yemen, which has 10 times the casualties of the Ukrainian one and has crippling sanctions imposed upon it is of no interest to white Western crypto-corporatist leftist activists because Yemen is a poor nation devoid of commodities and inhabited by POCs with a non-unionized workforce.
It is disgraceful that these seemingly caring leftists totally avoid engaging with poor non-industrial regions with a non-hierarchial population.

Code Pink is part of the left, and has campaigned for years against Saudi Arabia's invasion of Yemen. I was AT some of their protests at the Saudi Embassy and disruption of Saudi-sponsored events in DC.

They never got much help from the rest of the left, that much is true.

Then there were two war in Congo a while back. The second Congo War (AKA the African World War or African Great War) ran 1998-2003 and killed nearly 6 million people. All those tantalum capacitors in phones come from Congolese col-tan ore. Officially this war.drew in five of Congo's neighbors, but unofficial corporate intervention was almost guaranteed by the greed of corporate bosses globally for cheap coltan.

Well ok Luke, you are excused from my withering critique, and I reserve a smidgeon of appreciation for you passionate protest regarding Yemen, however your buddy Wayne maintains a silent armchair indifference.

Hi, I wrote this piece
This is an old draft uploaded by mistake, please check out the updated version on the C4SS website if you want the latest version... Or bully each other in the comments, I'm not checking

Do you mean a zealotry from a scientific side, like Dawkins for instance? Because if you do use it in that context, I think "incredulous impatience" or "exasperated frustration" from atheists when encountering and arguing against superstitions and myths to believers would be better words to use. I mean, it's usually the theists who have a monopoly in zealous fanaticism, though ideologues come a close second.

Add new comment