The images I am adding were found on pro atheist sites. The author, btw, is atheist, something I did not realize until the last few lines of his writing.
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view.~ Albert Pike
"No one will enter the New World Order...
unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer.
This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
To our bright and fair Australia,
Religion’s ever been a cruel
And bloody Saturnalia.
Atheists back then were as forthright as atheists today. The real difference lies elsewhere. Today, we can identify an atheism that’s not so much militant as weaponized ~ that is, deployed, all too often, in the service of the extreme Right.
‘Those steel pellets will go straight through somebody,’ he chuckled, ‘and out the other side and through somebody else. So they won’t be able to say, “Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.” No way, ’cause it’ll go straight through that as well. They’ll be dead, in other words.’
atheists have a special insight into the war on terror, which should, he says, understood as a conflict against ‘a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise’.
‘We are at war with Islam,’ she says bluntly. ‘And there’s no middle ground in wars.’
‘All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle.’
‘What is science?’ he asked, to which the congregations dutifully chorused: ‘Truth’.
Today, in most circumstances, no-one cares that you don’t believe in God. The Prime Minister is an atheist; in some professions ~ say, higher education or the arts ~ it’s considerably easier to be a skeptic than a believer (see many head scarves on Australian TV?).
As Sikivu Hutchinson points out, the front ranks of New Atheism consists almost exclusively of ‘elite white males from the scientific community’, a fact that, in and of itself, speaks to the social acceptance of non-belief, at least in the prestigious universities.
‘Secularism has outlived its usefulness. Our hope … [lies] in Anarchy which is based on rebellion against authority.’
Of course, liberal and even rightwing versions of atheism persisted. But the existence of sizeable left-wing organizations committed to a broadly Marxist approach exerted a huge influence on the politics of atheism in the twentieth century.
For a start, the New Atheism was turbocharged by 9/11.
Atheist polemics achieved an equal prominence precisely because they provided a simple answer to the newly urgent question that so many anguished pundits posed: why do Muslims hate us?
"The smugness that so often accompanies New Atheist interventions is not, then, accidental but is bred into the movement’s DNA."
Atheism was used in the same fashion. Hitchens, in particular, transformed himself from midlist radical journalist to international celebrity by spinning Bush’s military adventures as a war of liberal tolerance against theocratic backwardness, a claim that, in retrospect, seems almost embarrassingly stupid.
For him, as for the New Atheists today, religion was first and foremost a system of ideas ~ ‘ignorance with wings’, as Sam Harris says.
But consider the corollary. If religion is an intellectual doctrine and nothing more than that, the persistence with which so many cling to God faith becomes explicable only in terms of their congenital inability to reason.Or, to put it another way, if religion is purely and simply a fairy tale, then ipso facto those who cling to it are little better than children.The smugness that so often accompanies New Atheist interventions is not, then, accidental but is bred into the movement’s DNA.Symes rejected the activism of the ASA’s Left explicitly because to him the masses were, at best, dullards. It was very incapacity of ordinary people that made, he said, socialism impossible.‘The strong, the cunning, the swift … must survive, while the weak, the slow, the dull and those with no artificial advantage must of necessity go to the wall ~ yes, the brutal truth bids me say, they must be stamped out.’
The traditional Left approach to belief begins with a recognition that religion is not simply a set of ideas.Religion is a cultural identity; it’s also simultaneously an aesthetic, a system of feeling, a guide to social and sexual conduct, an organizational framework and many other things besides. These different functions contradict and complement each other in all sorts of ways.
If, on the other hand, religion is seen simply as a dangerous fairy story, then it’s almost inevitable that the fervent believers of Afghanistan are cast as menacing infants ~ a trope that reiterates, almost exactly, Kipling’s high imperialist image as the subjects of empire as ‘half devil and half child’.
Will anyone point out that the author of God is Not Great devoted his well-lived life to apologetics for a military campaign that led to the deaths of perhaps a million people?For progressives, should the devastation of Iraq not matter at least as much as Hichens’ reputation as a witty conversationalist?