Richard Dawkins saith unto us:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

“I know of nothing so close to atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have destroyed him as much as it was in them; […] the priests created a god in their image; they made him jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless.”

I speak as a life-long atheist. Is modern atheism a reaction to the ‘disgusting’ character of God in the Old Testament? But then, atheists don’t much care for the New Testament God either. Has religion gained in strength by becoming more tolerant, forgiving, and accommodating? The very nature of religion is to be judgmental, and it’s no wonder that overly ‘tolerant’ and flaky churches either fade away or adopt New forms of intolerance, such as Globo-Homo dogma, Magic-Tragic Negro Worship, or ‘Muh Holocaust’ or ‘Muh Israel’.

Religion is intrinsically judgmental and damning because it is the rejection of the body and the material world as fallen, cruel, horrific, and/or vile. If one were content and satisfied with the body and the world, what need for God, spirit, and heaven? It is precisely because the material world is so troubled that the spiritual imagination conceived of the soul as separate from the flesh.
This soul could attain transcendence, e.g. enter Heaven, if it were good and obedient to God. Or it could reach Nirvana by fully rejecting desire that leads to an attachment to the material world and the way of the flesh. A non-judgmental religion is ridiculous. Religion is essentially the judgmental condemnation of the body by what we imagine to be the ‘soul’. It is the rejection of the world in favor of Heaven and Nirvana. It is spiritual utopianism as utopia is impossible in the actual-material world.

Upon closer scrutiny, it’s unlikely that modern atheists were really put off by the ruthlessness of God in the Old Testament. Secular Social Darwinists were pretty heartless about the poor. Eugenics, another secular movement, believed the undesirables should be removed from the genetic pool. It had no use for the charitable Christian concept of the soul.
Also, the great ‘historical crimes’ of the Christian West resulted less from the Bible than from greed, vanity, and adventurism(though disingenuously shrouded in Biblical language). Even though the Church had a missionary role in Western imperialism, the real drivers were the profiteers and power-lusters.

Consider ancient history. Alexander the Great was a ruthless conqueror-adventurer, and he wasn’t inspired by the Jewish God. If anything, however one may feel about the Torah, Jews were among the least militaristic peoples in ancient times. Not because they were nicer but because they sucked at fighting. Jews figured, “Other Peoples may whup us physically, but we cannot be whupped spiritually. Others will grab more land, but we will conceive of a God greater than all their gods combined.”
It’s true that the Torah speaks of God ordering Jews to carry out mass-killings and the like. But in ancient times, pagans were just as ruthless, if not more so. Assyrians sent chills down the spines of their enemies. Spartans were cold killing machines, and some historians say they institutionalized bung-donging as a rite-of-passage. (It goes to show acceptance of homosexuality does NOTHING to ensure a more humanitarian point of view. Some historians surmise Frederick the Great was a closet-homo, but he was among the most aggressive German rulers. Also, homos today are all over the CIA, NSA, & Deep State, and they are among the most enthusiastic pushers of globo-imperialism. They love to play the world like a sex toy and cackle with glee at the horrors in Syria. Besides, though homos started out pleading for tolerance, once they gained co-dominance alongside the Jewish Supremacists, they’ve pushed globo-homo Queertianity as the new dogma that must be obeyed. Once a secular factor in society, the homo agenda is now festooning churches and even mosques with ‘gay’ colors.) National Socialists, Japanese imperialists, Soviet imperialists, and etc. proved time and time again that people can be just as crazy in service to secular ideology or pagan mythology. I don’t think the Chinese in Nanking were fleeing in horror because Japanese were running around with Bibles and sermonizing.

Richard Dawkins, a fine biological scientist but moronic social scientist, speaks as if he’s the god of the Current Year. Whatever happens to be the most PC in the present must be true-and-just for all times. His litany of complaints about God is hilariously predictable. The vain dolt is utterly unaware of how his brand of atheism is just as judgmental as old-time religion. He’s arrogant, contemptuous, sneering, sniveling, smug, and full of hot air. His personality is more despicable than that of any deity. You see, he knows best, he knows everything, he is so very rational, he is all about facts and logic while those who disagree are all morons or monsters. What a prick.

Even many atheists can’t stomach people like Dawkins who are into self-worship and auto-cult-of-personality.

Let’s consider some of his complaints.

1. God is jealous and proud of it. By ‘jealous’, it is meant that He is possessive. But then, why shouldn’t He be? If He is the supreme Lord and the Creator of all, of course He would be jealously possessive of what He created. It means God is a great environmentalist. He created the cosmic and worldly environment, and He is jealous and possessive of the creation. He doesn’t want it to be ruined, polluted, or befouled by sin and degeneracy. God created mankind and imbued humans with souls. Naturally, He sees mankind as His property because He created it. So, He wants mankind to be appreciative and not pollute their souls with sin.
If you had magical powers and created an oasis, a beautiful garden, out of thin air, wouldn’t you be ‘jealous’ and possessive of it? And if you created sentient creatures to inhabit the garden, wouldn’t you want them to take good care of it and heed the rules? What is the point of being the Great Creator and Owner of the universe if you’re not possessive of what you’ve made?

2. God is a petty, unjust, and unforgiving control-freak. Now, some of this criticism is valid because, after all, what is God or any bunch of gods but a projection of human nature and human personality? So, naturally what we find objectionable in God is a larger reflection of our own failings and problems. Every pagan god is far from perfect. Zeus is often petty and cruel. Indeed, many pagan gods were more frightening than the Jewish God. After all, Yahweh said no more to human sacrifice and that sort of thing. In contrast, certain pagan gods demanded human sacrifice, especially in the New World among the Aztecs and Mayans. Most people would take the Jewish God over a Volcano god that demands, “Feed me more virgins”. Does Dawkins really believe the God of the Torah is worse than pagan gods who demanded the human sacrifice of virgins or kids or thousands of captives?

Now, one problem with the Jewish God is the assertion of perfection. With pagan gods, as nasty-vicious-vile-petty-demented-sadistic-cruel they may be, they never claimed to be perfect. With a figure like Zeus, we can see his good and bad sides. As for dark gloomy gods who demand tons of human sacrifice, they may be amoral or even immoral, but at least we know they aren’t about justice. They are about POWER. They got it and flaunt it, and they demand we obey.

In contrast, the problem with the Jewish God is the cult of perfection that, however, is undermined by Biblical evidence. If indeed God is so perfect and all-knowing, why does He contradict Himself so often in the Torah? Why does He say one thing here, another thing there? Why is He about love and forgiveness here but about death and destruction there?

In a way, the history of Judaism(and even Christianity) has been the dialectics between (1) God’s Word and God’s Character (2) God’s Promise and God’s Deliverance. There is contradiction even within God’s words as He says one thing through one prophet and another thing through another. Jews and others have tied themselves in mental knots to rationalize these contradictions: (1) The Scriptures aren’t infallible but flawed interpretations of God’s will by the prophets who could see further than most men but nevertheless fell short (2) Though God’s ways manifest themselves in various and seemingly contradictory ways on the surface, they are consistent, indeed part of The Plan, at the deeper core (3) God really isn’t perfect but fooling Himself and us (4) God speaks to us in ways that we can understand, but His ultimate plan is too mysterious for us to process rationally… much like mankind cannot fathom the mystery in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or MOTHMAN PROPHECIES.

Some people wonder how God could be perfect but His Creation is so imperfect. If He is perfect, why did He fail to create perfection? But maybe one could argue that it is perfect as a whole, and paradoxically the ‘imperfections’ of the parts are integral to the perfection of the whole. Consider a painting. When we look closely at any part of the painting, it looks blurry and crude, even ugly and messy.
Yet, when we step back and take it in as a whole, we realize how each ‘crude’ brushstroke contributed to its ‘perfection’. Same goes for music. The final score is the coming together of all the ‘imperfect’ elements of music. What is cosmically perfect as a whole cannot be so in parts. Not everything can be perfect because most things are part of something bigger. Perfection connotes wholeness, and no part on its own can be perfect alone. It is imperfect and works with other imperfect parts in the creation of the larger perfection.

Now clearly, if we were to characterize God or gods as little more than projections of human nature/personality onto the universe, the deity/deities would merely be a bundle of all that is noble and ignoble about us. Our good sides would be magnified but so would our bad sides. And on that level, there is a pettiness in all conceptions of God.
On the one hand, they are grand and awesome, the lords of mountains, heavens, and stars. We want gods to be glorious and impressive. But to the extent that even such magnificent beings are reflections of all-too-human vices and vanities, the result is a contradiction between their august construction and all-too-human limitations. Zeus is a great god but sometimes acts like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein. (Just as the gods are a magnification of human traits, humans and life-in-general are fragile and delicate animations of the laws of the universe, as suggested in Terence Malick’s TREE OF LIFE. In the constant creations and destructions of life, and everything in between, is a poetization of the extremes of the universe.)

What is fascinating about the Old Testament is the dialectics among the various prophets, poets, and writers as to the true and ultimate nature of God. In a way, such dialectics were possible only because of the contradiction between the concept of God’s perfection and evidence to the contrary. Did God fail the Jews and humanity? Or did the Jews and humanity fail God? Did God betray the promise or did the Jews/humanity violate the promise? Was the vision of God by every prophet merely a piece in the larger puzzle?

Like the US Constitution, the Torah is a record of amendments. Just like there was talk of making the US a ‘more perfect union’, the Jewish project was about making their God a ‘more perfect God’. While the notion of the Jewish God as perfect could be said to be delusional and arrogant, it also made Jews more sensitive to the failures of God(or of themselves, which were maybe the reason why God failed to deliver His promise).

If Jews were okay with a flawed god(as the pagans were), they would have been less worked up about the contradictions between their spiritual conception and their political condition in the world. Jews came to believe their God is the true God(and perhaps the one and only God) who, furthermore, favored Jews as His Chosen.
If God is just and perfect, why is the world, His Creation, so flawed? If Jews are the Chosen, why are the beset with tragedies? Why can’t Jews be masters of the world over goyim and eat like effendi? (Today, Jews are the masters over goyim and eat like effendi, but this came about through Jewish adherence to secular satanism.) These questions made Jews a deep and profound people who raised among the most important spiritual questions. It also made them a difficult and neurotic people, rather like Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN trying to crack the mystery of “Who’s On First?”

Anyway, the fact that most pagan religions turned into empty shells, tiresome customs, or the butt of jokes(like what became of Greek Mythology via Ovid) whereas Jewish religion kept raising questions and even spawned Christianity and Islam goes to show that the Jewish conception of God was more powerful, provocative, inspiring, and meaningful. And despite all the dogmatism, it was adaptable in the sense that God went increasingly from an anthropomorphic super-being to a conceptual spirit, an abstract Deity.

In a way, Dawkins’ real beef with Judaism-Christianity-Islam is that its God was conceived of as a resilient fact-proof meme with seemingly an eternal appeal for humanity. With modern science/education, it’s impossible for any rational person to believe in Zeus, Thor, or Osiris. As gods with specified dimensions, they now seem like characters in a superhero comic book.

But, Biblical God has been conceived of as a Being who is at once so accessible and so mysterious. He listens to our prayers and cares about us; but He is so grand and mysterious that we cannot imagine what He looks or sounds like. Dawkins came up with the concept of memes, and as a radical rationalist, he can’t stand the fact that an irrational meme still has such power over the world.

But then, even as he spouts off about evolution, he’s pettily unwilling to consider how spirituality may have been an evolutionary advantage for mankind. Religion gives people hope and meaning, and surely those with hope and meaning are more likely to believe in the future. Even today, why is it that religious people tend to have more children than secularists who believe there is no meaning to anything? Secular science is superior at identifying issues and solving problems. It sent men to the Moon. But it tells us nothing about the meaning of the universe and why we are here. In all likelihood, there is no meaning to the cosmos, but such fatalism hardly makes for hope and survival.

Dawkins says God is unforgiving, but is He? Adam and Eve disobeyed Him, but He let them live. Cain murdered his brother, but God protected him. When Ham saw his pa Noah naked, God didn’t kill him but turned him into a Negro. Given white folks now worship Negroes, that wasn’t such a bad deal. When God was about to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He listened to Abraham and was willing to compromise. Even though so many people were acting like proto-globo-homo toots, God agreed to spare the city IF Abraham could find a handful of decent folks. God even sent angel-inspectors to look for signs of virtue, but they were greeted by a bunch of degenerates demanding to bugger them. That’s when God had just about enough and decided to blow the city to smithereens. Throughout the Old Testament, God is forgiving of Moses, David, and many others… as long as they face up to their own failings. He punishes Jews but forgives them over and over. God is often ruthless but also forgiving.

At any rate, He could change His mind because He was the only God. There is actually less forgiveness among the gods in pagan myths. Whereas the Jewish God might hate you but then forgive you, pagan gods generally hate someone forever. So, if that someone is to survive, he needs the protection of other gods who favor him. If Hera hates you, it is likely permanent. If you survive, it’s because some other gods grant you protection. Thus, pagan mythology is more political than moral. It’s about the balancing of powers.

In contrast, the Jewish God is capable of changing His mind. He can go from judge to reformer. He can be an executioner but change His mind and let you live. Some say what He did with Abraham and Isaac was pretty nerve-racking, but a pagan god might not have changed his mind. God let Isaac live because, when push came to shove, He wanted to be worshiped as a good God than just a powerful God.
Also, the fact that Judaism spawned Christianity goes to show there was an element of love and forgiveness. If such an element hadn’t been inherent in Judaism, there could have been no Christianity.

Is Dawkins aware of his own contradiction? He has often condemned ‘antisemitism’ but then argues that the Jewish Spiritual Worldview(that also led to Christianity and Islam) has been the biggest curse upon mankind. If the main cultural, moral, and spiritual contribution of Jews has been so rotten, vile, and disgusting, shouldn’t Dawkins agree with ‘anti-Semites’ that Jewish People have been the worst in all of human history?

Also, if mythology is the collective spiritual embodiment of a people and if Jewish mythology is the vilest of all, doesn’t it follow that the Jews must have possessed the sickest human character since it led to the creation of the worst credo and belief system?
Now, Dawkins may argue that he is opposed to biological antisemitism and is okay with Jews as a secular modern folks. If so, why not demand that Jews give up on Jewishness, an identity that simply cannot be divorced from the religious history of the Jews? Even secular Jews have an identity rooted in the Covenant with God. Also, if Jews suffered through the ages, it was because they insisted on their difference and even superiority based on the Covenant. So, the very notion of Jewishness should be condemned if Dawkins wants to be morally consistent.

Furthermore, what if the vileness of Jewish religion isn’t merely the reflection of Jewish Imagination gone wrong but of Jewish personality itself? Maybe the problem wasn’t in the spiritual vision but in the roots of personality, in attitude and mindset. Could it be God is especially arrogant, all-knowing, ruthless, judgmental, and vain because Jewish personality leans that way?

As an evolutionist, Dawkins might ponder the relation between the secular Jewish personality and the ideologies/agendas that sprung from it. Couldn’t one argue that modern secular Jews, even without belief in God, tended to have personalities of the monomaniacal and megalomaniacal variety(that one encounters in the Torah)? This is why E. Michael Jones is foolish to believe that Jews will finally abandon the troublesome ‘Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’ if they accept the bogus logos around Jesus. No, the Jewish Personality will merely spin and weave Christianity into new radical sects and movements. The problem is in the pudding of personality than in any credo. Alan Dershowitz will still be Alan Dershowitz even as a Christian convert, whereas someone as dim and dull as Mike Pence will still be dog-like and unimaginative even if he were to convert to Judaism. Madeleine Albright was raised as a Roman Catholic but turned out just as nasty as Victoria Nuland who followed in her footsteps.

Personality and attitude go a long way. A person with a bland personality is likely to be less fiery and fanatical even with religion; in contrast, a person with a strong personality is likely to have a god-complex even if he is irreligious — Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong were non-religious but loved playing gods, even at the cost of destroying millions of lives.
And look at the Neocons. Most of these Jews are irreligious. Their sense of Jewishness is political and historical than spiritual. But they have strong personalities and are willing to smite 100,000s and even millions of goy lives to fulfill their dream of Jewish Supremacism. So, maybe Dawkins should look more into the problem of personality than of faith.

As for God being a control-freak, I find this hilarious coming from an Anglo, member of a tribe known for its hoity-toity compulsiveness. Also, I see some projection here. Dawkins is a mental control-freak who laments that there are still religious people around the world who refuse to grovel before him as the all-knowing secular genius.
And look at current Britain. It has the worst of what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny. The culture(which is now mostly pop culture) encourages young Britons to emulate savage jungle behavior of blacks, which foments social chaos. Yet, there are also increased social controls about how you can’t buy knives, you can’t tweet certain comments, you can’t crack certain jokes, you can’t use certain words, you must bend over to globo-homo, you must celebrate Diversity, you must agree that not one less than 6 million died in the Shoah, and etc.
The current UK encourages increased levels of savagery that leads to social problems but then exerts more control-freakish state power over everyone in the name of dealing with the problems. Brits are now hoity-toity ho’s. How about being sensible and NOT importing lots of blacks and discouraging whites from emulating the most savage race? But no, the UK encourages whites to be like blacks and then exerts more state power to suppress the problems resulting from globalism.

3. A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. It is true that God watches over the Jews in their exodus from Egypt and clashes with pagan tribes to found their own homeland. The most frightening parts of the Old Testament is when God orders the Jews to wipe out entire enemy populations.
But here’s the thing. Why pretend this is a feature only or mainly of the Jewish God? Those who worshiped pagan gods conquered more and killed more. Romans invaded and killed tons of primitive Britons before they converted to Christianity. Huns, Mongols, Persians, Greeks, Assyrians, and etc. were great conquerors and mass-killers. Alexander the Great has been much romanticized, but he could be as ruthless as any tyrant.

All mythologies have gods aiding one people to totally smash another people. The gods defend a people; the gods help a people to invade and take from another people. The Jewish God was no different in this. Still, there are also sides to Him that call for mercy, peace, and reflection. The most blood-curdling parts of the Bible is when Hebrews, out of Egypt and in the wilderness, are looking to establish the Promised Land. It was going to be a bloody process.

Now, some historians say that it’s all fiction, the exodus from Egypt and the bloody wars with the other tribes. Others contend Jews did fight and take lands from Canaanites and the like and committed mass blood-baths. But such were common among all peoples at the time, and they all worshiped gods who urged ruthless actions to whup the other side. Still, the blood-curdling God is only one aspect of the Bible, not the main thing.

Besides, modern history shows one doesn’t need God and religion to conquer, ethnically cleanse, and wipe out entire populations. While white Christians conquered America & Australia and wiped out native populations, they were mainly motivated by political, material, and economic interests, not religious ones. Sure, they invoked God to justify whatever they did, but they also spoke of ‘progress’, ‘history’, or ‘justice’. To most people then, it was justice and progress for advanced white folks to take land from useless savages. Ayn Rand, a fierce atheist, said Jews should rule Zion because Palestinians are useless Arab barbarians incapable of building modern societies. Hitler and Stalin didn’t need to invoke God to conquer and destroy entire peoples. Zionism wasn’t a religious movement as its pioneers were non-believing Jews, and many were secular socialists. Still, they managed to manipulate the great empires to aid Zionists in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

4. A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

Too many terms here are subjective and un-scientific. What is meant by ‘misogynistic’? From a religious-spiritual perspective, secular pop culture could be said to be ‘misogynistic’ because it encourages women to dress and act like whores. If by ‘misogynistic’, Dawkins means women being subordinate to men, that has been true of nearly all of human history and human culture(and nature as well as most females are weaker than males across the species). Pagan Athens required women to wear veils, and women there were less free than in authoritarian Sparta. Black savage culture has been more expressive in female sexuality, so does that mean stuff like ‘twerking’ is the path to female ’empowerment’ and dignity?
By the way, despite open sexual expression among savage black women, male-on-female violence has been a bigger problem among blacks. Greek mythology’s view of womenfolk is actually more damning than in the Torah. Though Eve causes great harm, Adam also shares the blame. At any rate, God gave Eve to Adam as a gift and blessing. In contrast, Greek mythology says women were presented to mankind as a curse from the very beginning.

As for ‘homophobic’, what is more intolerant and judgmental than current globo-homo Queertianity? BAKE THE CAKE, BIGOT. Or, if you say you find sodomy to be gross(which it certainly is), forget about working in any elite capacity.
Besides, even if religious intolerance and judgmentalism toward homos were excessive in the past, they were still in the name of normality, decency, and health. In contrast, the current globo-homo intolerance of so-called ‘homophobes’ is a denunciation and negation of normality, nature, and decency in the name of consecrating degeneracy and decadence.

Some things are worth honoring, and some things are only worth tolerating. Family and natural norms are worth encouraging and defending. Homosexuality is, at best, worth tolerating. NOTHING good can come of homo fecal penetration, guys sucking penises, and tranny-penis-cutting-and-balls-lopping.
So, while one could argue that the Old Testament is excessive in its anti-homo-ness, intolerance of homosexuality still makes more sense than intolerance of normo-sexuality and its natural attitudes toward homosexuality. Why shouldn’t a sane, decent, and normal person find homosexuality to be deviant and gross?

Also, Ancient Jews lived in tough times when people had to focus on core values and essentials to survive. They had no time for decadence. Is there any evidence that celebration of homosexuality led to civilizational strength? While Ancient Greeks were smart to harness homo talent, it was never good for any civilization to be overly celebratory of homos as such invariably leads to decadence and degeneracy as homos are naturally vain and froopy-doop. They act like those trivialist freaks in Fellini films. Keep them on the side, not at the center.

As the Jewish God was a moral force focused on essentials, it’s understandable why He was hostile to homosexuality. His laws were about reminding Jews over and over what really matters, what are essential and what are trivial. Naturally, sticking dongs up bungs was not only non-essential but gross and a good way to spread disease.
Imagine you have special powers and you create a garden. And then you mold creatures and tell them, “This orifice you use for eating, this orifice you use for shi**ing’, and that orifice you use for sex”, but a bunch of freaks decide to stick sexual organs into poop-chutes.
Of course, you-as-creator would be upset. Suppose you create a toilet bowl that is meant for pissing and pooping but a bunch of people use it for washing their faces and drinking water. Suppose you build a museum for an appreciation of the arts, but idiots fill up the place with junk and have orgies inside. Naturally, you will be upset. Then, is it any surprise that God didn’t design the bung for the dong?

Dawkins says God is ‘racist’. Well, all gods tended to favor one group above others. But then, what’s the point of worshiping a god who doesn’t favor your side? Also, non-‘racist’ gods are not necessarily better. In the Trojan War, it’s obvious that the gods whom the Greeks worship are not necessarily with the Greeks. Indeed, half of them favor the Trojans, and this only prolongs the war. Would you want to worship a god that sides with your enemy? Greeks did, and it caused them all sorts of problems. Because there was no covenant between Greek gods and Greeks, it wasn’t long before Romans took them and made them serve Rome. (Later, Romans took the Jewish God as their own, but Christianity was the doing of Jewish heretics who, Prometheus-like, smuggled the Jewish fire to the pagans, something Jews could never forget or forgive. Jews see it as a bigger crime than Rosenbergs sending nuclear secrets to Stalin who became the enemy of Zion.) But generally, most gods rooted for one people over another. Oftentimes, gods needed to be appeased to remain on your side. Gods also needed to be appeased for good weather. Or appeased so that they won’t torment your people too much. Popular Chinese religion imagined heavens filled with corrupt bureaucratic gods who must be bribed so as not to torture one’s ancestors too badly. No wonder Chinese are morally screwy.

So, it seems the ‘racism’ of the Jewish God wasn’t such a bad thing or a bad thing at all. What’s wrong with your god favoring your kind? The elites should favor their own people, and gods should favor those who worship them. It’s how spiritual contract works: A people worship a certain set of gods, and the gods favor them. British elites used to be grand and excellent as race-ist elites. They favored and cared for their own people. But ever since British elites became ‘anti-racist’, they’ve neglected and abused their own folks while sucking up to rich Jews, pandering to angry Muslims, cucking to savage blacks, and welcoming the Great Replacement, aka White Nakba. Race-ism is infinitely preferable to evil ‘anti-racism’.

Granted, there was a contradiction in the Jewish conception of God because Jews increasingly claimed He is the only God and the God of all and everything. If so, why should God favor Jews over others when He is lord of all?
So, the problem of the Jewish God has been less about ‘racism’ than conceptual contradiction, even hypocrisy. If God is the only God and if He is just and moral Being to all living creatures, why should He favor Jews over others when, in fact, Jews can act unjustly while non-Jews could act justly? But this contradiction led to the rise of Christianity and Islam.

At any rate, if Dawkins finds the Jewish God to be most ‘racist’, he is effectively condemning Jews as historically the most ‘racist’ people since the content of their cultural character(and personality) led to the creation of the most ‘racist’ Deity. As such, one could argue Dawkins’ view is rabidly and virulently ‘Anti-Semitic’, but then, the hypocritical fool makes a lot of noise about how he loathes ‘antisemitism’. Following Dawkins’ logic, Jews can be good ONLY IF they are culturally and spiritually de-Jewified. Jews must undergo spiritual holocaust to be good folks. They must be castrated of their ethno-spiritual roots. He loves Jews only as un-Jews.

Now, should an evolutionist be opposed to race-ism? Evolution is about genetic divergences and emergences of differences among groups. Indeed, not only has evolution been race-ist in creating different races but it has also been species-ist in generating different species, which are the products of races growing sufficiently different from one another to form entirely separate species. Racial divergences can lead to the formation of different species. There was a time when the ape-ancestors of humans were of the same species as the ape-ancestors of chimpanzees. But over time, one race of those early apes became chimps while another branch became the apelike proto-humans. So, if Dawkins has a problem with racial differences, he should blame evolution.

Dawkins says God is infanticidal, and it’s true that God ordered the killing of children when Jews were battling other tribes to find their land of milk and honey. And in Egypt, prior to the Exodus, He killed the firstborns among the Egyptians. But His actions against Egyptians were punishment for Egyptian tyranny over the Jews. And when Jews were battling Canaanites and the like, it was kill or be killed.
In other words, infanticide(as extension of genocide) was common practice in the ancient world. Your people, upon defeat and capture, were lucky if spared and kept as slaves. Quite often, the conquering folks raped, pillaged, and wiped out entire enemies. So, it’s hardly surprising that the Jews, like other tribes, committed bloody acts and justified them as decreed by God.

But before we judge the past too harshly, let’s look at the modern world. During World War I, British blockades against Germany were a form of Total War. It wasn’t just military vs military but targeted the entire population, driving many Germans to starvation. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the secular ‘liberal democratic’ West enforced sanctions on Iraq that, by some estimates, killed 100,000s of Iraqi children. To create a new social order, Stalin and Mao were willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the name of History. To his dying day, the much celebrated secular intellectual Eric Hobsbawn remained a proud communist and said Stalin’s actions in Ukraine were necessary.

Also, many people see abortion as infanticide, especially as it is now allowed even up to the moment of birth when the baby is fully formed. And the Modern West and Modern East are cursed with ‘conceptocide’ or ‘fertilocide’. Never mind killing babies. These societies are not even conceiving and creating life necessary to sustain their civilizations. They live for elitism, individualism, hedonism, and vanity. They are essentially death cults and won’t survive the way they’re going. Is this what Dawkins is so proud of?

Dawkins accusing God of ‘megalomania’ is rather silly. Megalomania is about having a self-image that is bigger than the actual self. If a nobody considers himself a big man, he is a megalomaniac. If a king regards himself an emperor, he is a megalomaniac. If an emperor considers himself an immortal god, he is a megalomaniac. But God has been conceived of as the supreme creator and ruler of all of universe. Naturally, He would have a grand view of Himself. Should the Creator of All be timid as a mouse?
If anything, the striking feature of God is that, despite His grandeur and awesomeness, He expresses an incredible amount of sympathy for a weakling tribe(in the Old Testament) and losers around the world(in the New Testament). The reason why so many people have clung to God through the ages via Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is because He is, at once super-powerful & almighty AND concerned with the little guy. In contrast, Dawkins worships his own infallible intellect.

Dawkins says God is pestilential. Now, we see what Dawkins’ real shtick is about. He is trying to blame God for all the problems of life created by evolution. Since the beginning of life, organisms big and small have been slaughtering, devouring, murdering, tormenting, torturing, trashing, smashing, slashing, gnawing, goring, gouging, pummeling, cracking, and smacking one another.

The theory of evolution may be elegant as a model in a textbook, but its practice in reality has been most brutal and horrific. We may wonder at the beauty of nature, but what we consider to be ‘beauty’ is really a range of survival mechanisms that were developed over eons via natural selection that weeded out so many ‘innocent’ organisms in brutal ways. Just watch any nature program, and these non-religious animals are murdering and slaughtering each other to no end. Animals evolved to survive because the natural environment was so unforgiving. In other words, evolution has been brutally genocidal toward countless species over the eons.

Evolution led to the rise of all kinds of germs that wiped out entire species. It has been pestilential. Also, the uncaring godless universe sent asteroids to smash into planets and wipe out in an instant entire species that had evolved over millions of years. That is the godless world of the laws of nature and evolution. Look at chimp behavior. They bite off each other’s penises and balls. Look how big cats kill wild pigs. Look how polar bears butcher seals and their cubs. Look how sharks maim turtles. Look how volcanoes and forest fires burn millions of animals to death. And mankind, with or without God, has been pretty miserable. Look at the US policy toward Iran and Palestinians. Has Jewish behavior gotten better without God? Secular Jews gave us communist mass-killings and Neocon wars. Were Japanese less cruel because they didn’t believe in the Jewish God? Look at their behavior in World War II. Is secular globalism and open borders the way of peace and justice? They are filling the West with savage jungle-jivers from Africa who are bound to turn Europe into New Africa.

Also, when most people lose religion, do they become rational and sane, or do they adopt a quasi-religion because it’s human nature to seek spirituality? Look at the ‘climate change’ faith. Global Warming may be real, but for many people it’s simply a replacement faith. When Western folks lost God, many more of them took up neo-idolatry of celebrity-worship, drugs, and debauchery than commitment to reason and science, the domain of those with high IQ.

Steven Pinker says the world is getting better and better, but what will happen when tons of black Africans turn Europe into jungle-land? The effect will be worse than WWI and WWII combined. As long as Europe was still inhabited by Europeans, it recovered from both WWI and WWII in no time. But with blacks taking over Europe, it will turn into one big Detroit forever. This should be so obvious to any secular and rational person who cares about facts(that are race-ist), but Dawkins has a quasi-religious blind-spot of his own: Political Correctness and ‘anti-racism’ as the new catechism. Not unlike religious bigots with their holier-than-thou sanctimony, the ‘woke’ types are so theatrical and rapturous with their holy-shmoly ‘anti-racism’ when, in fact, the reality of race is so obvious and the black threat to the West is so dire.

Dawkins says God is sadomasochistic, but this goes for Dawkins and his ilk too. They’re oh-so masochistic with ‘white guilt’ BS. Oh boo hoo, they must atone for their history of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’. But as GOOD WHITE PEOPLE SAVED BY PC, they sadistically love to bully other whites who refuse to kneel at the altar of White Guilt and debase themselves like a bunch of worthless cucks.
In this, Dawkins is very much like the religious people he abuses. Just like the Christian confession of guilt also serves as the reason for moral superiority, Dawkins bleats about ‘racism’ but that very bleating fills him with the moral pride and arrogance to stick it to others.

Rioters are looting weapons from cop cars in France.

It's not even the weekend.pic.twitter.com/SMSSdSIBw0

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) June 30, 2023

Dawkins is a real piece of work as a social critic. As for Jews, they could be promoting Dawkins to dissuade goyim from worshiping God so that Jews can reclaim and own Him all for themselves. If someone has gold and you want it for yourself, it’d be a nice trick to make him believe it’s totally worthless. When he lets it go, you run off with it. So, the Jewish support of Dawkins could really be a kind of trick.

God and gods never existed. They didn’t give us life. Life emerged from a process of evolution and maintains itself by destroying other life. Evolution created life, and that is the curse. God or gods are the imaginary creations of life, and why did intelligent beings imagine gods?
Because nature is horrible. Because life is filled with agony. And this life was created by evolution, the beloved process of Dawkins. Evolution is a pack of hyenas eating a wildebeest alive. It is lions slowly tormenting and killing a hippo mother and its calf. Without life, there would be no terror. If Earth had no life, who’d care if volcanoes or earthquakes happened? So what if a giant asteroid crashed on Earth? The Moon was hit by tons of asteroids, but it was never tragic because there was no life to kill.

Dawkins got it backwards. He blames the Jewish God for cruelty and horrors, but all those resulted from life. Evolution created life, and life is about pain. Why pain? Because pain ensures better survival. An organism that feels pain is more likely to avoid danger. But the pain is often horrible and unendurable. Before mankind came up with the first spiritual idea, tons of life forms were destroyed by other life, volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, germs(that are also just more life), and etc. Life was so terrible and cruel that mankind came up with gods to explain why the world is so messed up. And by ascribing disasters to gods or God, they hoped to ease the horror by prayer and appeasement.

It’s true that the God of Torah sends all sorts of disasters on life and mankind. But even before Jews conceived of their God, such disasters had been happening forever. There were floods, pestilence, violence, fires, and destruction. As people sought answers to such problems, they believed some higher force was behind them. And if gods controlled the universe, there were three possibilities.

1. God or gods are powerful but bad. God or gods are cruel and love to use their power for power’s sake. They love to stomp on the weak, and that is the reason for the horrors. Therefore, the ONLY way to ease their sadism and cruelty is to make sacrifices and offerings.

2. God or gods are good but powerless. God or gods are good & loving but helpless to prevent the disasters to protect or save mankind. They watch and weep but can’t help us.

3. God or gods are powerful and good. God or gods are good & loving but use disasters to punish mankind when it does wrong.

Many pagans opted for #1. Aztecs believed in cruel gods that had to be appeased endlessly. Chinese popular religion believed in more civilized gods but they were utterly corrupt and had to be bribed regularly by burning money.

#2 is problematic even if it lets God or gods off the hook because it implies God or gods are rather weak and helpless to do anything. If they are good but lack the power to save mankind from the horrors, what good are they? Indeed, are they really gods when they are so lacking in power?

#3 is the one the Jews settled on. God is powerful and good, and so, He uses Power to protect the good and punish the evil. Jews believed that disasters weren’t the arbitrary muscle-flexing by God but divine moral acts to punish the wicked.
But, this caused problems of its own as Jews couldn’t help but notice that so many virtuous people suffered and perished while so many villainous monsters got rich and powerful. And so, there was the Book of Job and the rise of Christianity that promised Heaven for the good and meek. For all its problems, #3 is still more assuring than #1 and #2.

Just like science searches for the ultimate reality behind all cosmic phenomena, the deeper religions have sought the greater god(s) behind/beyond the lesser gods.

As for science and evolution, it just says Things Happen, and if an asteroid hits Earth and kills all of us, that means we just ran out of luck, and that’s that. I agree with this, but is it any more heartening than religion?

While God is a projection of Jewish personality and has a Covenant with the Jews, He is also bigger than the Jews. If God were merely a tool of the Jews, then He would be lesser than the Jews. He would be just a henchman, a bouncer in Heaven for the Jews. But as creator and judge, He is bigger than the Jews, and Jews must bow down to Him. And even though He favors Jews, He is very tough on them(and I’m sure some Jews believe the Shoah was also divine punishment because Jews lost their way). Sometimes, He is tougher on the Jews because of the Covenant. When Jews betray Him, He takes it especially badly, ‘personally’. It’s like a father especially feels betrayed by his own children.

Even though He can be ruthless and brutal in favor of the Jews, He can also be ruthless and brutal against Jews. Also, it’s not enough that Jews do well and gain power in His eyes. Jews must gain power and wealth as GOOD people of virtue, piety, and conscience. God is not okay with power for power’s sake. His message to Jews is NOT ‘by any means necessary’. If Jews are to be blessed, they must be a good people who obey God and act morally. Through a prophet, King David was admonished of the wrongness of His ways. And even though God allowed ruth