Coulter's "Godless" Reviewed:

There are many things I like about Ann Coulter. When she's digging up dirt on democratic opponents, like how they distort their war records, or get away with crimes, she's really in her element. I also like that she's genuinely willing to argue for her beliefs and isn't so afraid of 'incivility' to ever disagree with a liberal.

However, Ann Coulter parts ways with the racialist right in her book 'Godless.' For the longest time, I wondered if Ann Coulter was secretly a racist, but just covering it up in order to stay popular. Godless answered my questions about her. She isn't a racist, by the grace of God. According to her, the only sensible, logical atheist would be a Nazi. According to her, if she Were an atheist, she'd be a National Socialist. But instead she's a Christian, which trumps all logic and reason with divine revelation. By such a slender thread hangs her soul! She then spends the rest of her book attacking atheism and darwinism with assaults that, unfortunately, are not persuasive to an atheist and a darwinist. It is my hope to tackle her attacks on atheism and darwinism, while embracing her admission that the only logical atheist and darwinist will be some sort of Nazi. I think she's on to something there.

Atheist Darwinists have a simple position on abortion. We are pro-white-life, and pro-black-death. This is because we want our own race to survive but the black race to die. When blacks go out of their way to kill their own progeny, we are eager to be of any assistance we can. Taxpayer funded abortions? Sure! Taxpayer funded infanticide? Go for it! If some low IQ minority race wants to kill itself, we feel no remorse. We can't allow ourselves to feel any remorse. This world is only so big, and every non-white child is filling up a malthusian niche, displacing a potential white child who could, and ought, to have been born. In the end only one race will survive our Thunderdome: Earth. There isn't enough room for all of us, we are constantly intermixing, and one race's population will eventually outnumber and displace all the others due to variable demographic trends. Whites want that race to be the white race. We are okay with it being the Asian race. But we are adamantly opposed to it being the black race, which is barely a step above the apes. It goes against evolution for the inferior to supplant the superior. It's a crime against Nature. Abortion is also a crime against nature, it is unnatural and horrid for a mother to kill her own child. But in the case of black abortion, two wrongs make a right -- one crime against Nature helps cancel out the other.

Ann Coulter has a different, Christian perspective. She doesn't care what happens to the Earth. She doesn't care if blacks are the sole surviving race on Earth. She figures God's plan will succeed no matter what happens. Therefore, she has the luxury of being able to oppose abortion 'across the board.' She gets to talk about the sanctity of life, the basic commandment to not kill, compassion for the unborn, and all that jazz. We, however, have to balance all of these concerns with the fate of the planet, and our universe -- should it be left in the hands of the superior white race, or the inferior and practically demonic black race? Because we have to keep our priorities straight, we come to a different answer on abortion.

Ann Coulter attacks us for our ruthlessness, but who is really the ruthless one here? On one side, we have a group of people who care about the future of the world, of life. On the other side, we have someone who doesn't care. Ann Coulter simply does not care what happens to this world, life, or the future. God is going to blow up the world and everyone on it, and end the future at 'judgment day' anyway. So what does she care how badly her choices will affect our quality of life or the future? To her, we were all doomed from the start, so we may as well become a planet of the apes. For atheist darwinists, life is too precious to put at risk, and Earth cannot afford to lose its superior races. We are the truly caring group. We're the only people who care about the real world.

For the same reason, Ann Coulter attacks eugenics as 'ruthless.' She quotes various 'proto-nazis' who talk about the plague of inferior races with unrestricted birth rates overwhelming the world. She talks about eugenicists advising the elimination of the mentally and physically deficient. She thinks just quoting how 'ruthless' these people are is enough to disprove their validity. Unfortunately for her, everything they have predicted is true. According to Lynn's book Dysgenics, the stupid of the world reproduce faster than the intelligent, which has had a century long measurable IQ dysgenic effect on the world. To make matters worse, it isn't just stupidity that is being selected for. Violence and criminality is also having higher reproductive success than civility and law-abidingness. And for some unknown reason, rates of mental illness have been continuously increasing over the past century.

Christians don't have to care about these things. If the world becomes retarded, sickly, insane, and violent, God can just step in with his 'judgement day' and sort everything out. Nothing about this world, or its future, matters. Nobody's quality of life matters. The future doesn't matter. So Ann Coulter, predictably, doesn't care about the real problems eugenicists are trying to address. She just talks about how ruthless we are.

But the ruthlessness of abandoning an entire world to wrack and ruin is far worse than the ruthlessness of trying to save it. Atheist darwinists are trying to save the majority, healthy stock of mankind, by culling the diseased stock of mankind. Once you realize that intelligence, behavior, and personality is genetic and hereditary, it's obvious that humans must undergo selection just like any other crop or animal. Dairy farmers don't select for their least healthy, least productive dairy cows. Wheat farmers don't select for their least healthy, least productive wheat stalks. So why on Earth should humans select for our stupid, sickly, insane, violent criminals? And yet, if we do nothing, we are selecting for these traits by Default. Because we have scientifically observed that statistically, over the last century, all of these traits are becoming an increasing proportion of the human gene pool. Only by acting, only by imposing eugenics, whether through carrots or sticks (who cares, so long as it works?), can we reverse these trends and start improving humanity's future just as we select for favorable hereditary traits for every racehorse, farm animal, and cereal. Again, Ann Coulter can carp about how ruthless we are. But why is it ruthless to want to improve the quality of mankind? Why is it ruthless to want to forever abolish disease, insanity, retardation, and criminality from the gene pool? Why is it ruthless to want future generations to not have to suffer from the same curses that afflict us?

There can be no question as to the effectiveness of eugenics. It's effectiveness is proven in every other aspect of our lives. Our cotton crops are selected and carefully bred to improve their traits. Our corn crops are selected. Our pets are carefully bred and selected to be friendly and peaceful. We select for everything around us. Through selective breeding and increasingly genetic engineering, we daily improve the size of our apples and the nutritional content of our rice. It is impossible to deny the effectiveness of eugenics. Man is just like any other living being, we have hereditary traits just like our domesticated plants and animals. Among these are hereditary diseases, intelligence, and insanity. Obviously what we select for can, therefore, increase or decrease these traits in the human gene pool. Humans can be improved whenever we wish to start. Ever since we understood heredity, eugenics has been a blindingly obvious next step for mankind. All intelligent, sensible people believed in it before Hitler's time. All intelligent, sensible people who have not been brainwashed to mindlessly hate all things related to Nazi Germany still believe in it today.

Ann Coulter is refreshingly honest as an opponent. She admits what liberals refuse to admit. She admits that the sexes, and the races, are biologically different. She admits that blacks have lower IQ than whites. She admits that IQ is real, measurable, hereditary, and has a dramatic impact on a person's quality of life. Since she admits that IQ is hereditary, we can also assume that she admits it is a trait we can select for, and increase, through eugenics. Her admission of all this can be found on page 173 of Godless. In her own words:

"IQ is a better predictor than socioeconomic status of poverty, unemployment, criminality, divorce, single motherhood, workplace injuries, and high school dropout rates. . .Although other factors influence IQ, such as a good home environment and nutrition, The Bell Curve authors estimated that IQ was about 40 to 80 percent genetic."

"The times complained that The Bell Curve "belabor[s] the well-known fact that the average IQ of blacks is 15 points below that of whites."

"A few years later, the American Psychological Association formed a Task Force on Intelligence in response to the publication of The Bell Curve and issued a report basically admitting the truth of all the book's major conclusions. Among these were:

"Differences in genetic endowment contribute substantially to differences in [psychometric] intelligence. . ."; and "The differential between the mean intelligence scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status."

So you see, Ann Coulter is not a liberal and rejects all liberal arguments against race realism. She has admitted all the central truths to a Nazi's argument, save one, whether or not Christianity is divine revelation that trumps all the logic of the world.

In her own words, page 175 of Godless, Coulter makes the most stunning 'all cards on the table' play I've ever seen from a conservative:

"Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. . .After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its bloody conclusion, liberals became terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people -- especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation, much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry, when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said."

This is an amazing passage. Just two pages ago, Ann Coulter pointed out that IQ was pivotal to criminality, divorce, single motherhood, poverty, etc. But, two pages later, she says that Christians DON'T VALUE INTELLIGENCE. Intelligence is unimportant to a Christian, humans are not special because they are intelligent, nor is an intelligent human more special than a retarded one. They are all equal to her. Which means, through simple logic, that it is all equal, all one to her, what the divorce rates are, what the criminality rates are, what poverty rates are, what single motherhood rates are, and what ANYTHING affected by IQ's rates are. Yet again, I ask, who is the ruthless person in this group?

Secular humanists, atheist darwinists, are looking at the same facts as Ann Coulter. They believe, as she does, in the Bell Curve. The only difference between us is that we still care what divorce rates are, we still care what poverty rates are, we still care what single motherhood rates are, we still care what crime rates are. Because we still care about the quality of life on our world. We want a world without divorce, single motherhood, crime, or poverty. She doesn't care either way. To Ann Coulter, even if everyone has no father in the home, even if everyone is starving in the streets, even if all families are broken, even if there's a 50% you'll be murdered or raped, God will come in on 'judgment day' and sort things out. Humans don't have to select for any trait that might help the world. We don't have to care one whit about these topics. This is the amazing feat of Christianity. To a secular humanist, human intelligence is of primary importance, because it leads to earthly bliss. Stupidity, on the other hand, leads us to hell on Earth. These are all indisputable scientific facts. All statistics have shown these real, relevant correlations. Smart people have happy homes, crime-free neighborhoods, oodles of wealth, and all other good things the Earth can provide. Dumb people have none of these blessings, and in addition, become criminal, parasitic dangers to the smart people of the Earth. But to a Christian, intelligence has no value, because happiness or suffering is all one to them. Good outcomes and bad outcomes are equally meaningless. Broken homes and nurturing homes are equally worthless. Only whether people go to heaven or hell matters. The world can fend for itself, people need only take care of their souls. This utter nihilism, this absolute refusal to care about the Earth, is Ann Coulter's pirate flag nailed to the top of her mast.

Ann Coulter, in this passage, gives people three choices: Either you can, like a Christian, not care about intelligence, and thus not care about any utility to any attributes correlated to intelligence, and thus not care as the world goes to hell. Or you can, like a liberal, deny the truth and censor all speech that might lead back to it, living in a sort of eternal 1984 Orwellian age. Or you can, logically, follow the implications of godless secularism to Hitler's bloody conclusion. Between these three choices, it should be obvious who she should actually support. She even admits that all logic, truth, and reason supports Hitler. Only her blind faith is getting in the way.

Of course, secular humanism doesn't need to have a 'bloody' conclusion to its logic. It doesn't really matter if blacks die out today, or 100 years from now, so long as they die out. This means that godless secularists can carry out Hitler's eugenics and race wars in an entirely peaceful, non-bloody manner. All we have to do is pay for blacks to not have kids, or fertilize all black women with white sperm, generation after generation, or mandate a 1 child limit on blacks, like Chinese have mandated on themselves already. In this manner, we can gradually 'drain the swamp' of the Earth's inferior races and inferior individuals without spilling any blood. If the objection is how violently Hitler went about killing people, there are endless permutations of Nazism that can avoid the violent aspects. This means that the only true objection to Nazism is secular humanism's objectives themselves: a world of smarter, healthier people with more wealth, less divorce, less crime, longer lifespans, and more two parent homes.

Apparently, for the sake of 'freedom,' or perhaps 'fairness,' we shouldn't select for the superior to overcome and defeat the inferior. The inferior and the superior should just be decided by a roll of the die. Luck, or fate, or God's plan, or something, anything but our own direct intervention, should decide between us. The diseased, divorced, criminal, impoverished of the Earth and the wealthy, healthy, married, happy of the Earth should not be so cruelly 'selected.' It should be a perfectly even, 50-50 shot for both groups. This way, no one would have to feel bad about themselves or be 'oppressed'. Only, this way, 50% of the time, the world loses all value and becomes a giant hellhole. But who cares? Apparently freedom and fairness trumps all such 'petty' concerns.

There is only one group of people who want a happy world -- atheist darwinists. Everyone else doesn't care about happiness, prosperity, success, or any of that. They are solely interested in 'judgment day' and 'souls' and 'heaven.' Or they are solely interested in 'freedom,' or 'fairness.' As far as our enemies are concerned, the happiness of the world be damned, so long as the means we used to arrive to Hell were 'free' or 'fair,' or 'godly,' it's fine by them how exactly we got to hell on Earth. There is only one group of people on Earth who aren't ruthless. These are the sole and only people who care about human happiness -- the atheist darwinist Nazis. Since we are willing to abrogate the dictates of divine revelation, freedom, and fairness, for the sake of human happiness, we can save the world. No one else can. All other philosophies must sit back, helpless, their hands tied, as they watch the world turn into 'planet of the apes.' The sheer absurdity of their position should prove their error prima facie.

Coulter goes on to attack the theory of evolution. She says that darwinists have not shown how various mechanisms evolved through random mutation and selection. Some of the problems are extremely daunting. She also points out that atheists have not figured out how inanimate matter turned into life in the first place. Claiming that evolution does not have the ability to ever answer either of these questions, she posits Intelligent Design to be the only possible conclusion.

Technically, there is another answer. Everything could have appeared the way it is today through pure chaos. Perhaps we woke up, today, at the moment of creation, and everything that looks like it was in the past is just an implanted memory. Supposing some sort of primordial matter outside of this universe, that can rearrange itself into an infinite variety of shapes over an infinite length of time, anything, no matter how unlikely, is bound to emerge, including ourselves. In this way no Intelligent Design is necessary.

Even so, it is unfair to claim that just because evolution has not Yet explained the origin of life or how we went from point A to point B, evolution Never can answer these questions. My answer to all these objections is 'give us time.' Many smart people are thinking about just these things. We will probably be thinking about it for eons yet to come. Once we are smarter than humans, perhaps the answers will come more easily to us. Just because we haven't proven evolution doesn't make it false. It just means we have to wait and see.

She then attacks liberals who refuse to discern the difference between humans and other life forms. This, of course, is what liberals must do, because they must share the belief, against all evidence, like Christians, that 'intelligence is not what makes us special.' Only Nazis, who are willing to admit intelligence does make us special, can discriminate between humans and beasts logically. Christians can quote a bible passage, where Adam was given sovereignty over animals. Liberals, however, are just up a creek. Morally speaking, having rejected IQ as a carrier of value, having even rejected the existence of intelligence, they really can't discriminate between humans and animals. This is why liberals so often go down the path of environmentalism, lost in a moral jungle of competing interests between all life forms which are all 'equally valid.' Nazis don't get lost, we bushwhack through the interests of our competitors with one simple standard: "The superior should supplant the inferior, but the inferior should not supplant the superior." Armed with the knowledge of our superiority, we can eat animals, zap bugs, and sterilize idiots.

Coulter claims that godless people are moral relativists. This is true of liberals, who have rejected all standards of judgment between groups or individuals. This is not true of Nazis, who have a clear standard of judgment. We can call some things 'good' and others 'evil.' We can name 'right' from 'wrong.' We can discriminate between 'superior' and 'inferior.' We have all the moral power of Christianity and more. Instead of relying on what some bearded guy in the sky thought, 2,000 years ago, we can apply science and reason to our definitions of objective, absolute good and evil. We can continuously update our standards and understanding as new facts come in. Nazis of the past, for instance, discriminated against Jews and Asians. But now we've discovered that Jews and Asians are more intelligent than we are, and are able artists, inventors, etc. Jews and Asians even have more intact families and lead more moral lives than whites. Therefore, UPDATED Nazism no longer discriminates, or has any animus against, Jews and Asians. Updated secular humanism admits we got it wrong last time, and this time we'll only target the true culprits, blacks, muslims, and their ilk, which statistics still prove are hopelessly inferior to the white race and white civilization.

Religions can't update themselves. They are stuck with the same texts forever. When the bible says slavery is okay, Christians can't change it. When the Qu'ran says taking women as slave mistresses as bounty in raids is okay, they can't update it. But when science shows Jews were smarter than we thought and shouldn't have been targets for extermination, we can update OUR beliefs. Ann Coulter is arguing against Nazism, against atheism, against darwinism, as though we are still making the mistakes of the past. But the beauty of believing in science and reason, is that we don't have to repeat our old mistakes. We can learn from them, and change our beliefs accordingly. So what if Nazism failed? So what if Hitler was wrong? Secular darwinism adapts. We are like the willow, we bend, rather than break, when things don't go our way. No one has yet disproven our NEW plans for the world. No one has shown THEY would fail. Until we are granted our own country to do with as we please, no one can tell how great our potential is. I suspect we would quickly become the foremost civilization on Earth. I also suspect that liberals and Christians suspect the same, which is why they are so deadset against allowing any corner of the world to become a secular darwinist, 'Nazi' state. They know we would quickly surpass them all, and leave them in the dust while we went to the stars. Since they don't have the guts to be ruthless, they won't allow anyone else who has the guts to be ruthless to get ahead of them. It is pure spite. Convington was correct to predict that the Northwest Republic would be the first to reach Mars. So out of spite, they won't allow a Northwest Republic. They know, just as we know, that our vision of excellence would prosper beyond all others. But since they hate our beliefs so much, they will not allow a real world example to validate them. What a twisted web we weave when first we practice to self-deceive!

All of Coulter's attacks against 'godless Nazis' that attempt to cite atrocities of the past, are therefore null and void. Because we believe in science, rather than divine revelation, we don't have to be Nazis like Hitler until the end of time. We can take what works and reject what doesn't. We can believe what is in accordance with known scientific facts, and not wild fantasies or past errors. The only criticism she can attack us with is what we would do for the world NOW, rather than what we did in the past. But by her own admission, our current world program is the only 'logical' conclusion. And that anyone who cares about divorce, crime, single motherhood, length of life, or poverty, would 'logically' be a Nazi. Whether people should be logical, and care about these things, is up to them. I suppose you could instead always wait for 'judgment day' and let God sort things out, after humanity has already ruined itself and there's nothing mortals can do. Or I suppose we could poke out our own eyeballs and stab spikes into our own ears, so that the ceaseless observations of inferior black behavior never reaches us, so we can continue to live in the fantasy wonderland of the liberals. But if these scenarios seem beneath the dignity or potential of mankind, it's time to throw off your chains and join the godless.