LOL: Banned From The “Christopher Hitchens Appreciation Facebook Group”

They’ll lie, like almost all of them always do, but it was immediately after I posted this: The Scientific Method For Dummies and Frauds, Like Richard Dawkins.

This post is dedicated to the memory of Christopher Hitchens, a remarkable man; not for any idea he ever held, but that he was honest enough to change his mind and tell eveyone why.

This is a prelude, a foundation to a later post, where Tim Steele and I will call into serious question the value of 16s rRNA sampling of the gut microbiome, after some time of both of us being “fanboys.” See, we did science and changed our views accordingly.

What the fuck is science, anyway? In today’s politicized world, it’s a bludgeon. It’s too often what one invokes in order to smear, dismiss, assert, or otherwise look the other way. It has—in modern use for too many—become a sort of “authority” one references in order to lay claim to legitimacy. And too often, it’s motivated by laziness, or a reluctance to dump a bad investment in shit that’s just wrong or in need of serious critical evaluation.

Good science is hard to do. Few are up to the task, and that may simply be for the reason that, having solved a huge number of plaguing problems in human quotidian history, we’re quibbling at nipping at heels. I don’t know, but I do know what science is:

Observation and experiment.

It continues for a god long bit and exposes everything about that group that would cause Hitch to disavow them. Of course, it not even close to the first time where a bunch of frauds and burglars have stolen a dead man’s legacy.

But, they are a preponderance of dishonest liars, using the memory and legacy of Christopher Hitchens to advance their pet social schemes, in pursuit of money and pussy.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. pp on January 8, 2016 at 16:35

    The femminst movement’s silence on the treatment of women by religion is astounding. Why do they not speak more? Is it because they are more interested in using the movement’s cause for their own agenda’s (executive pay equality etc) than the interests of truely oppressed girls and women?

    • Richard Nikoley on January 8, 2016 at 21:48

      Occam’s Razor:

      It’s were all the cunts mingle. Feminism.

  2. Hap on January 9, 2016 at 12:12

    They could give a shit and love the idea of transforming OUR society…not anyone else’s according to a coherent philosophy. They are scared shitless of Islam…..but easily cause politicians and university administrators to cower and pander.

    There Is real feminism….a kind that reviews the facts, including the damage to men of government enforced radical restructuring.The dominant leftist feminism is just another form of fascism full of willing enforcers. Have you ever noticed that leftists of any stripe cannot conceive of any limits to their complaints or proposed reforms? You cannot be too pure…..sounds like jihadism

  3. Daniel F on January 9, 2016 at 18:31

    Milo, Mike Cernovich and Roosh have all started pointing out that “feminism”, in its current form, essentially amounts to a concentrated attack on While men (i.e. the sine qua non of modern civilization).

    If you look at the obsession over “rape culture” in the universities, and to the specific hoaxes that received so much adoring media attention (Duke lacrosse, Mattress Girl, UVa), the common denominator among all of them is the goal of demonizing White men. To the extent there are actually violent sexual assaults on campuses, the perpetrators tend to match what goes on in the real world, i.e. non-white minorities are way overrepresented: Black athletes and townie criminals (often minority). This latter type of sexual assault (i.e. the real kind) is never called out or focused on by feminists or college bureaucracies. Indeed, it is instructive to now compare their reactions to the German government’s reaction to the mass Muslim sexual assaults: try to cover them up, keep them quiet and engage in excuse making for them.

    Indeed, to look at how European feminists are actively engaging in excuse making and victim-blaming (lol) in the case of the Muslim assaults in Germany, you realize the game is up. (“Women need to be more careful and cover up blah blah” How come they never say that about the “rape culture” on campuses?) Feminism is a scam that is interested in demolishing White males (i.e. modern civilization.)

    This truly is a must-read by Roosh:

    • Daniel F on January 9, 2016 at 18:34

      Type in first sentence….

      Milo, Mike Cernovich and Roosh have all started pointing out that “feminism”, in its current form, essentially amounts to a concentrated attack on _White_ men (i.e. the sine qua non of modern civilization).

      • Daniel F on January 9, 2016 at 18:35

        And typo in first sentence of correction comment…. Face palm.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 10, 2016 at 00:53

      While men type… 🙂

    • Richard Nikoley on January 10, 2016 at 00:59

      Oh, yea, I just saw a tweet out by The Economist of three black guys ddinking big mugs of beer, with the caption “maybe it’s time to redefine what it means to be German.”

      Here’s an idea. Flood Asia with white people, and then claim it’s time to redefine what it means to be Asian. Or, say, Africa.

      Lead baloon. In fact, there are lots of white Africans, generations. But they’ll tell you themselves that it’s often considered an outrage for them to call themselves Africans.

      Of course, it’s all whities fault, you see. Pestilence of the planet and everyone would be so much better off without our colonial ways.

      Yes, there is a war against white, particularly men.

      • yien on January 12, 2016 at 01:29

        hehe this is some fuarking truth right here

  4. Jose Camoes Silva on January 10, 2016 at 13:12

    Hilarious coincidence: A few hours after tweeting a link to this post, another “skeptic” blocked me for daring (pleb that I am addressing doctor professor scientist skeptic that he is) to point out that a tweet of his saying that scientific truth was not to be questioned was not very skeptical.

    See for yourselves:

    Yeah, it’s all about identity with these people. I think Hitch would be the first one to disown them.


  5. Hap on January 11, 2016 at 18:06

    I am no maven of hitchens or a fanboy although I confess to being entertained when he was on tv. I guess I just like a good row, especially at least if one of the combatants is a wordsmith. He was kind shabby chic and had that British brash and loved giving his opinion and then defending it. How in the world Richard could get banned from his FB appreciation group is beyond me. I rather suspect CH would have liked RN, self styled and very opinionated iconoclasts.

    And regards science, and I am a doctor professor(ouch) most of it is fraudulent and corrupt. I don’t sit in judgement of grants but know many who do, and politics plays a role and bias rampant. Socialscience also barely science if at all. 80 percent or more cant be replicated.

    I get more skeptical as I get older. Science does not equal scientism. Dawkins is an especially obnoxious droning attention seeking fraud.

    Now, who among us is willing to express skepticism of evolution?

    • Daniel F on January 12, 2016 at 18:41

      There are in fact some very interesting challenges to the theory of evolution coming from a non-religious perspective. The following links can get people started. I agree that all things should be open to question. It may be that TENS is only as “wrong” as the Newton’s theory of gravity when compared to Einstein’s theory of relativity. But that still would make it wrong.

      Fred Reed and Roosh are both non-religious. Vox Day is a Christian, but the posts I am linking to show him using entirely non-religious thinking to question the theory.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 13, 2016 at 08:20

        Without wasting my time, do any of them contemplate the observable evolution in the lab with bacteria, viruses, and phages? Species that go through a number of complete generations per day?

        In fact, one lab that has cultured a certain bacteria over a couple of decades and thousands of generational turnovers, came up with a completely new “species.” It switched to a different food source.

        Now, this is absolutely evolution, it is testable, reproducible, and is open to falsification.

        In other words, it’s actually science.

      • Wilbur on January 13, 2016 at 09:37

        I just read the first link. The guy says that he has received several comments to read Dawkins. He says he has, but he didn’t absorb it or something. Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker deals solidly with the monkey and the typewriter. It’s about cumulative natural selection, and the probabilities change dramatically.

        I read a recent example of fish that in just a few years (?) changed from saltwater to fresh water via evolution.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 13, 2016 at 16:49

        Well, as a salwater aquarist for both fish and reef, fish are highly adaptable. Invertebrates are not at all. The slightest pertebation can kill a reef. Very hard to maintain in a small ecosystem.

        But fish? Hell, you can have nitrate levels that would melt corals, and over time, they can adapt to increasing levels of brackish water.

        There are also spawning fish like salmon that live in saltwater but spawn upstream in fresh.

        So, I don’t think all this is much about evolution as much as about adapability, even as pertians to a specific organism.

      • Wilbur on January 13, 2016 at 18:19

        I dunno. Here is the original that I read

        The article, as I read it, suggests evolution, not adaptation.

  6. Daniel F on January 12, 2016 at 18:41

    Richard, I gave a comment with a lot of links so it was put into moderation. Appreciate it if you can approve it. Thanks!

  7. Daniel F on January 12, 2016 at 18:49

    One more link, which is just to a search for posts tagged with “evolution” on Vox Day’s site. I particularly recommend “Probability and the Problem of Life”, “Probability and Belief”, “Evolution is a random process” and “Lamarck lives!”.

  8. Daniel F on January 12, 2016 at 19:09

    From one of the Fred Reed column’s I citied: “Over the years I have occasionally expressed doubts over the tenets of evolutionism which, perhaps wrongly, has seemed to me a sort of political correctness of science, or maybe a metaphysics somewhat related to science. As a consequence I have been severely reprehended. The editor of a site devoted to genetic expression furiously began deleting any mention of me from his readers.”

    Note the refusal to discuss by those who believe “the science is settled.”

    Richard is correct that climate change “science” is one frontier of politically correct thought policing. But it is interesting that Fred refers to TENS as “a sort of political correctness of science.” I think he (and the other people I cited) are on to something.

  9. Daniel F on January 12, 2016 at 19:46

    Sorry, have to quote more Fred because he is just too good. Not on the question of the truth of TENS, but on the issue of remaining objective and open-minded:

    “The intent of this essay is not to debate with the ardent of evolutionism, which is the Political Correctness of science. To do so would be pointless. The greatest intellectual divide is not between those who believe one thing and those who believe another, but between those who have an emotional need to believe something fervently and those who can say, “I don´t know.” The former group comprises those tedious Darwinists and Creationists who robotically hurl imprecations at each other like fans of rival football teams. Each blockheadedly refuses to concede the slightest possibility that its doctrine might be other than infallible.”

    This stuff really is relevant in the context of being banned from the Hitchens Appreciation group. laf.

  10. Daniel F on January 14, 2016 at 01:36

    “Without wasting my time, do any of them contemplate the observable evolution in the lab with bacteria, viruses, and phages? Species that go through a number of complete generations per day?”

    None of them is denying the descriptive and explanatory power of TENS on the grounds you describe.

    Vox notes the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, basically speciation vs. biogenesis. “Interestingly enough, the situation is precisely the same in economics, where micro is based on observation and supported by evidence and macro is abstract theory maquerading as science, which turns out to be totally nonoperative in practice.” Vox notes: “Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life, it only concerns the transformation of one existing species into another.” I.e. biogenesis and TENS are different things.

    So in no way is he, or the others, denying what you quote above. Just as no proponent of Einstein or Plank is denying that the apple falls from the tree (Newton) in a sense. There are not people simply making an ID argument; they are saying that the science is not supporting TENS.

    The people I cited have other objections, including flaws in TENS that undermine it, places where it appears to break down, become tautalogical or not bear logical analysis.

    To your specific question above, Vox addresses it indirectly through his posts about the problem of _time_ and evolution: scientists have based, or base, their models on certain assumptions about how many generations, how long something has been occurring, etc., while evidence emerges throwing those assumptions strongly into question. Some scientists then react by adjusting other variables or assumptions to arrive back at their original conclusion. I.e. some scientists are engaging in the same type of behavior you have noted is inexcusable in the case of climate change science.

    See in particular Vox’s post Evolution and the Problem of Time.

    Fred is arguing from a range of different critiques: metamorphasis as unexplainable by TENS, the typewriter thing (and people can judge for themselves whether he addresses Dawkins sufficiently or not), tautological arguments (any fact is conveniently “fit” into the TENS narrative so that it becomes unfalseafiable.

    Roosh, whose arguments I find the weakest, is saying that TENS is losing explantory power in the real world because man is no longer acting as the theory would explain.

    I am not throwing in my support with IDers or denying TENS. My point is that the science is still going on, Darwin may have gotten some things wrong, and TENS is not “settled science.”

    • Richard Nikoley on January 14, 2016 at 08:18

      Ok, I’ll try to take a look.

      However, I’m not particularly interested in first origins. There’s reason to believe we may never know, and poslulating some creator as an alternative “hypothesis” suffers from the same infinite regression problem. Same goes for cosmology and I note that Hawking just came out with a paper claiming black holes actually don’t exist.

      The other thing is that while I haven’t dug into it deeply, I find that a lot of critiques focus in one way or another on the concept of species, which is simply just our way of classifying things.

      The map is not the territory.

      In terms of man, well of course we don’t demonstrate natural selection. We now circumvent it. That’s what socialism is all about. Sealing from the able in orter to pertatuate the unable.

      • Richard Nikoley on January 14, 2016 at 08:19

        …See Idiocracy, the movie.

      • Hap on January 14, 2016 at 16:59

        All I can say is…..this is fun. I think I felt a twinge of Richard slightly caving… be nice.

        I do think it is important for anyone thinking about evolution to consider reading the tome “Signature in the Cell” and possibly “Darwins Doubt” including the companion volume of Debate on Darwins Doubt. Ad Hominem attacks have been the signature of militant evolutionists against ID and the responses of ID theorists are substantially more civil and actually quite learned and articulate. they don’t have to be right, just able to poke a few holes. I hate smarmy scientists who can’t take a punch.

        I also wonder how those American sailors got “stranded” in the Arabian sea. Don’t they have sophisticated GPS and radios to call the US Navy which is represented by a nearby carrier group? If I were a sailor, soldier , or airman, I would be loathe to hang out to dry while Iranian water Toyotas come by to pick me up for propaganda purposes.

  11. Daniel F on January 14, 2016 at 22:07


    “Ad Hominem attacks have been the signature of militant evolutionists against ID and the responses of ID theorists are substantially more civil and actually quite learned and articulate. ”

    As I noted above, the people I am citing are not coming at this from the perspective of ID. I would definitely _not_ waste Richard’s time by referring him to ID stuff.

    To quote Vox again from the post Evolution and the Problem of Time:

    “Genuine genetic science is eventually going to kill evolution by natural selection deader than phlogiston or the Flat Earth theory. ”

    Does that sound like someone who is skeptical of TENS because of ID? No, _genetic science_ is going to killl TENS.


    “…See Idiocracy, the movie.”


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k