Some people say “9/11 truth ends war.” Others, the impolite ones, say “9/11 truth ends Israel.” But what 9/11 truth really ends – and what really needs to be put out of its misery – is stale, conventional thinking.
War, as Gwynn Dyer put it, is just a “lethal custom.” We do it because it’s customary, not because it is a particularly good idea to train young men to be mass murderers, dress them up in uniforms and turn them loose to use ever-more-lethal weapons on their fellow human beings and our shared environment. To end war, we need to get our thinking out of its customary rut and see war for what it is, stripped of its mythological adornments. Once we do that, we may discover that what the big liars call “terrorism” – ordinary people defending themselves from extreme injustice – is the only justifiable form of warfare.
America’s continued propping up of Israel is another example of muddled conventional thinking. Every excuse offered for the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state in Palestine is fallacious. The Jews are threatened by anti-Semitism so they need a state for protection? Even if all of the bad blood between Jews and goys throughout history were the fault of the goys – a likely story! – rounding up most of the world’s Jews and putting them on a small patch of brutally-ethnic-cleansed land where a couple of nukes could wipe them all out isn’t exactly a smart way to prevent another Holocaust. Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East? Hardly – a state that has ethnic-cleansed most of its voters is hardly democratic; and the region itself is undemocratic precisely because the people of the region justifiably loathe Israel, yet their leaders are forced by the realities of brute power to cozy up to Israel and repress their people. The Jews deserve a state like everybody else? What everybody else?! There are thousands of ethnic groups on earth, fewer than two hundred states, and essentially NO ethnic states–so why should Jews get special privileges? When Helen Thomas said that immigrant Jews in Israel should go home to America and Europe (or else apply to the Palestinians for legal immigrant status) she was absolutely correct; there is no reasonable counter-argument.
My claims–that war is insane, and the existence of Israel is insane–will, as John Lennon put it, probably get me labeled as insane…at least by those locked in the prison-house of ossified language and conventional thinking. But more and more people are escaping from that prison house, thanks to the botched false-flag op of 9/11/01. Those of us who have sorted out most of the truth from the lies of 9/11 inevitably ask ourselves: What else could they be lying about? How many other pillars of our conventional view of reality could turn out to be wrong?
The facts of 9/11 force us to re-think 9/11. And re-thinking 9/11 forces us to re-think everything.
Here is a list of my top ten candidates for issues that beg for re-thinking in light of the falsity of the media and government’s version of 9/11–which should make us re-think everything we thought we knew.
10) Circumcision. Most U.S. Americans think it’s not a bad idea idea–even one endorsed by religious tradition and/or medical hygiene–to cut off the most sensitive part of a baby boy’s genitals shortly after birth. In light of what we now know about how ultra-sensitive infants are, and how traumatic events in infancy negatively impact that person’s whole life, is the genital mutilation of male babies really okay? Could the widespread practice of torturing and mutilating male babies in infancy partly account for the obscenely self-righteous destructiveness of the American and Israeli personalities? Are we in denial about this, as so many of us were about 9/11?
9) Urinating and defecating in drinking water. Humans are the only species dumb enough to poop and pee into their drinking water. As an era of water shortages looms, and the skyrocketing costs of excreting into purified water, then attempting to re-purify the water, becomes more evident, might we find that human excrement is a valuable resource that only becomes toxic waste when we mix it with water? Is it time to flush the flush toilet down the porcelain bowl of history, and start composting humanure instead? For details, read Joe Jenkins’ Humanure Handbook.
8) Drug policy. This is almost too obvious to make the list. Why does the West criminalize marijuana–a relatively innocuous herb with proven medical benefits–while advertising and encouraging the use of alcohol and tobacco, which together kill nearly three-quarters of a million people every year in the US alone? Why does the West try to force its own insane drug preferences on the rest of the world–by labeling as “fanatical fundamentalists” any Muslims sensible enough to try to eliminate alcohol from their societies, while at the same time forcing puppet Muslim regimes to crack down on marijuana? And why should we let the CIA continue to be the world’s biggest drug dealer?
7) Media. Obviously the entire mainstream media, and most of the foundation-funded pseudo-alternative media, is a toxic cesspool of lies. Should we jail the worst offenders? Bust up the big media conglomerates by rigorously enforcing anti-trust laws? Or simply try to ignore and/or ridicule today’s professional media out of existence, while establishing honest media via the internet? Since Bush repeatedly bombed and strafed al-Jazeera for reporting the truth, might we be justified in launching military attacks on big media war criminals to punish and dissuade their genocidal big lies? Would that be “terrorism” (as they would say) – or justifiable counter-terrorism? Or would this form of war be as idiotic as other forms (see #1)?
6) ETs and psi. These related topics are repressed from mainstream thought in the same way 9/11 truth is repressed: By ridicule and refusal to engage with the evidence. Why? Like 9/11, they threaten to launch Copernican revolutions. 9/11 truth forces Americans and Zionists to face the fact that it is us, not them, that is the bad guy; the ET issue suggests that humans may be simply one sentient species among many, and not a very advanced one; and psi threatens to flesh out quantum physics’ claim that the physical reality we experience is actually dream-stuff that is in part the creation of our own minds.
Recently, statistical meta-analysis has apparently confirmed what the rigorously empiricist Encyclopedia of Philosophy reported almost half a century ago: the scientific evidence for telepathy/clairvoyance, and to a lesser extent precognition and psychokinesis, is very strong. Likewise, strong evidence suggests that something very odd, involving technologies far in advance of anything in the public domain, is going on in the case of at least some alleged ET events; and that Congress ought to hold hearings and allow the military officials who appear in Disclosure Project to get their wish and testify under oath about the extraordinary things they claim to have witnessed. To a person not yet deprogrammed by 9/11 truth, these claims may seem insane; while to a genuinely free mind familiar with these controversies, they are simple common sense.
5) Religion vs. atheism. Is it really the religious fanatics who are the bad guys? 9/11 set the stage for a trendy wave of vapid anti-religiosity, expressed in books by Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. Yet if it was cold, calculating neocon atheists who were evil enough to pull off 9/11 as a false-flag attack – while Muslims, especially extremely religious ones, are even more opposed to attacks on civilians than are average Americans – could it be that religion implies morality, and atheism immorality/amorality, as virtually all serious thinkers of all times and traditions (until very recently) have always insisted? Could it be that the carnage of the past two centuries, by far the bloodiest in human history, stems from the loss of religion as a guiding principle of civilization?
4) Islam vs. the West. Is Islam really a dangerous enemy, as the 9/11 big liars claim? Or could Islam actually be the friend of humanity in general and the West in particular? Could Islam help end the usury-driven global power system of the international bankers who staged 9/11? Could it help Western culture become saner and better balanced in such areas as work-leisure, work-family, sexuality-family, material-spiritual, human-nature, male-female, rich-poor, and so on? Could it help remedy some of the defects of Christian-style monotheism? Could Muslims, who sit on 80% of the world’s easily-recoverable energy, become the allies of the West in its great-power relations with such potential rivals as Russia, India, and especially China? Could shallow, selfish, narcissistic, materialistic, atheistic Europe be saved by mass conversions to Islam? Might the West (excepting its last settler-colonial outpost in Occupied Palestine) actually be better off if al-Qaeda’s goals (which are supported by the vast majority of Muslims) were achieved and the Islamic world re-united and re-empowered?
3) Industrial civilization and technopoly. Is it doomed, as Mike Ruppert’s Collapse and James Kunstler’s The Long Emergency suggest? Was it a bad idea in the first place, as argued (in very different ways) in Mumford’s Machine trilogy and the Unabomber manifesto? Is there something about Western culture that encouraged the emergence of a destructive and unsustainable material civilization, as argued in Koyanisquatsi and S.H. Nasr’s Man and Nature? Should we radically change our way of life before it kills us? Should we consider making war on industrial-technological civilization, as argued by Derrick Jensen? Or would that kind of war be as bad an idea as most other kinds (see #1)?
2) Israel. (Return to the beginning of this essay.)
1) War. (Return to the beginning of this essay.)
Kevin — after listening to your show with Susan Lindauer, I immediately turned on the light, put my PDA down, booted up my laptop, and ordered her book from Amazon. Man, you really do have the best lineup there is.
I just cancelled my monthly contribution to someone I've supported for quite a while after his second headline in a row was a non-news item. In fact, anti-news. I'm talking about Information Clearing House.
So I decided to sign you up for the pledge, but your PayPal link only allows for one-time gifts. How do I set up a recurring?
Best —
The Proud Primate
why israel stopped the publication of the wiki cables about UFOs… cause we would have a very good laugh on this one !
Guess WL has no sense of humor!
Proud Primate, I appreciate your support! The one person who donates monthly just stopped.
You can support the work I do through our 501c3nonprofit, Khidria, Inc., by donating through paypal to khidria(at)merr(dot)com . Contributions are tax deductible. EIN on request.
We will be co-sponsoring a Richard Gage Midwest tour in April and May. Khidria, Inc. also sponsors the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth and Muslims for 9/11 Truth. Email me for more info.
Well, as I'm checking around, it appears there is no mechanism for offering a recurring payment, only for soliciting one. I guess I'll have to write down a schedule to give on and fix it to the door.
You might consider adding check box for "recurring monthly" on your Donate page. You never know how many potentials you missed! It could be a very simple and unassuming bit of extra detail on the form.
Your work is extremely important. I frankly know of nobody that I find as much value in as your podcasts. My next favorite is Peter B. Collins (and occasionally Sibel Edmond is on board too). I also like Steve Lendman whom you have shared air with.
So anyway, I am glad to offer some sort of encouragement.
As a secular humanist, I was genuinely surprised by your issue 5, "Religion vs. atheism". The mention of "a trendy wave of vapid anti-religiosity, expressed in books by Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc." reminds me that I do vaguely remember reading something critical of Islamic extremism in "The God Delusion" by Dawkins, but his error regarding the terrorism allegedly originating in that does not discredit the more essential points of his reasoning, which I find to be sound. It's not clear to me, moreover, that "it was cold, calculating neocon atheists who were evil enough to pull off 9/11 as a false-flag attack". Was it not primarily, in fact, Zionist Jews who believe they are ordained by God to master the world, and who were acting in accordance with this religious belief? Israel is a Jewish, not an atheist state, and even if some of its leaders are atheists personally, Zionism is as good an argument against religion as one is going to find, and I'm sure you're not about to deny the flagrant relations between Zionism and 9/11.
"Was it not primarily, in fact, Zionist Jews who believe they are ordained by God to master the world, and who were acting in accordance with this religious belief?"
No, it was not. It was Straussian neocon atheists like Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Abrams etc. — check out the signatories to PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses. Straussian philosophy basically accepts that without God, everything is permitted — but only to those strong and tough and cynical enough to dispense with God (and other myths). These people believe it is neocon atheists — not God-fearing Jews — who should rule the world through mythmaking and big-lying. Nobody who believed in God would ever consciously participate in a lie on the satanic scale of 9/11.
Zionists are not Jews. Zionism is atheism and idolatry. It is a pseudo-religion cooked up for former Jews who were so traumatized by the Holocaust that they stopped believing in God, and started believing in the need to build up their own power by any means necessary, especially big lies and mass murder, so that they and their side could thrive in a world without God and without justice.
Read Drury's books on Straussianism, the philosophy that leads directly to the 9/11 false-flag attack.
Kevin,
You and many other highly moral religious people are a living refutation of vapid anti-religious opportunists such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and others.
I don't go in for attacking religiosity per se, and I wish you would return the favor by not demonizing secular humanists in general, as you do in 5) above, by taking up the canard that atheism implies immorality/amorality.
For me, the same natural selection-given (or as you believe, God-given) rationality that I use to critically examine the history of the SCAD of September 11, 2001, also compels me to turn away in horror from the history of the bloody-minded, henotheistic god of the Hebrews as recorded in the Torah.
Nevertheless, I agree with your proposition in 4) that Islam makes the best of the God of Abraham.
Some Zionists certainly are Jews, and vice versa. Neturei Karta are moral Jews who adamantly oppose the "Zionist entity" that falsely calls itself Israel for reasons of religion and justice. On the other hand, surely you are aware of the Hasidic followers of the Chabad Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson (of blessed memory). Members of the Lubavitcher sect are ardent Zionists and sincere, Torah-believing Jewish supremacists who look for the soon-coming of Moshiach to Israel.
The rabbis who indoctrinate Jewish IDF soldiers that HaShem requires them to kill every "Amalekite", even those who are un-armed, even their women and children, are surely both religiously-motivated AND doing evil. Ditto the author of "The King's Torah" Talmudic study of when it is permissible to kill goyim.
Yes, atheist Straussian neo-conservatives planned and executed the 9/11 false-flag attacks, but there is every reason to believe that some Zionist Jewish rabbis would whole-heartedly approve of killing 3,000 Goyim, and even a few hapless exilic Jews, in order to arouse the USA to attack those whom Israel sees as her enemies.
I don't need to agree with every position you take in order to support your "truth jihad", and to appreciate that it springs from your religious practice as a Muslim.
Doug, I didn't mean to suggest that all atheists and agnostics are immoral or unethical. Far from it. It is certainly possible for individuals to be highly moral without being nominally religious. And it is possible for others to be amoral or immoral while being nominally religious. In fact, much of what passes for nominal religion, I would argue, is actually idolatry of the worst sort–like the "religion" of the crazy racist rabbis who worship their own ethnic group rather than God, subhanahu wa ta'alla, who is far beyond such things. In fact, you skeptics may be closer to real religion than most nominally religious people. The first part of the shahada is "There is no God" and this wipes the slate clean of all false gods including ego, nationalism and tribalism, wealth, fame, sex — and of course tribal idols. Once you've done that, you're halfway to affirming "but God" — and this, the Real, is ultimately beyond all human description or comparison. So there is something to be said for your religious position as well as your ethics.
Doug didn't accuse you of suggesting that all atheists and agnostics are immoral or unethical, but of "taking up the canard that atheism implies immorality/amorality." You seem in any event to have backed off, but only, it would seem, by putting secular humanism into your realm of religion, at which point the whole thing becomes merely semantic. What makes your conception continue not to work for me is my prior study of social anthropology, which left me with the impression of God as a historical development of the tribal totem, for which the tribesman was generally prepared to go out and fight for the glory of his group's particular spiritual entity. Being religious is thus totally consonant with making war, and I think modern history bears this out despite your conjecture regarding "the carnage of the past two centuries". In my own personal experience, for example, it wasn't atheists who wholeheartedly supported the war in Vietnam, but the American churches, almost to a parish.
That said, I'm certainly not going to argue with you about Straussianism, something about which you clearly know much more than I do, and I'm certainly not going to argue on the basis of a Wikipedia article contesting alluded assertions of Drury, whom I doubt I'll get around to reading. Without being able to argue much in favor of the hunch, and without caring to, I can say that part of me tends to think that it wasn't so much atheists or Jews per se who were behind 9/11, but persons motivated by financial rather than religious or nonreligious motivations. Either that, or the trillions of dollars involved are merely coincidental.
This is a complex issue to try to argue in a couple of paragraphs. "Religion" can mean different things. I use it in two general senses: 1) the broad sense, used by specialists in Religious Studies; and 2) the narrow sense, based on my own understanding, in which I would contrast "religion" (which is true and necessary) with "idolatry/kufr" (which is false and destructive). Atheism might qualify as a religion in the first sense. But in the second sense it is a kind of idolatry, a subspecies of the false worship of progress and rationality characteristic of the post-Christian era. While it is possible for some individuals to hold false beliefs and participate in false worship, and act with good ethics and morality in other areas, just as it is possible for some warm-weather animals to thrive in an ice age, the overall trend is for all idolatries, including atheism, to correlate with social breakdown and the spread of bad behaviors. We are now living through the terminal phase of a social collapse whose main cause is the loss of religion (in the second sense) among the Western elite, which has created a materialistic philosophy and way of life that is destroying the planet.
I believe in progress and rationality myself and will take them over traditional religious myths any day of the week. You can take myths and disdain progress and rationality if you prefer, but it's regrettable in any event that this can serve as a point of division – as religion, I might point out, so often does.
Let me add here an observation that I find interesting. I searched Google on "Schottenstein's" the other day, wanting to be sure I wasn't misspelling the name of a chain of department stores in Columbus, Ohio that I was mentioning in an e-mail to someone. I saw that there was a "Schottenstein Talmud", which reminded me of my continuing curiosity regarding the Talmud. I searched through many pages without being able to find a Talmud conveniently online, which I found a little strange. This inability led me to try searching Google on "the Bible in mp3" – about 63,100 results. Then I tried "the Koran in mp3" – about 10,700 results. And then finally "the Talmud in mp3" – *NO* results found. Zero. Zilch. The first alternative find informs that one can get it with commentary in MP3 files on DVD for US$499.95. I don't know what this means and I don't claim that it means anything at all, but it suggests to me a secrecy and, I must say, a power that seem somehow comparable to what we encounter when we confront 9/11 and the mass media. Again, this doesn't seem precisely atheistic.
Kevin Barrett said ""Religion" can mean different things. I use it in two general senses:…2) the narrow sense, based on my own understanding, in which I would contrast "religion" (which is true and necessary) with "idolatry/kufr""
Semantics, semantics and more semantics. Let's open a dictionary.
·dol·a·try
–noun, plural -tries.
1. the religious worship of idols.
See? Right there – religious. So let's not 'contrast' religion to religious. This is pure sophistry on your part.
Kevin Barrett also said "But in the second sense [atheism] is a kind of idolatry, a subspecies of the false worship of progress and rationality characteristic of the post-Christian era."
Are you trying to redefine atheism here? Since when 'worship of progress and rationality" is characteristic to atheism? Are they definitive features of atheism? Certainly not, for one can deny existence of any supernatural supreme being and still be skeptical about progress and rationality. Seems to me you are battling the wind mills of your own misconceptions here.
Finally Kevin Barrett said "…the overall trend is for all idolatries, including atheism, to correlate with social breakdown and the spread of bad behaviors."
Equating irrational thought with a rational one is only evidence of your complete analytical impotence. Please also note that there is no such absolute as bad behavior, for good and bad are always in the eye of beholder, except when 'bad' refers to your reasoning.
BTW, loved your resort to censorship in pursuit of truth.
Normally I don't waste my time with comments featuring egregiously weak arguments. But here goes, "anonymous." (I rarely publish worthless comments by people too cowardly to give a handle, much less a name; if you offer a real name with traceable biographical info, I will be more likely to publish your idiotic rantings.)
Obviously I have the right to my own religious views. My definition (2) of "religion" (i.e. right religion) is naturally in accordance with those views.
For at least 1750 of the first 2000 years of Western (Christian) civilization, the word "atheist" was a pejorative term that was only applied to other people. Essentially nobody called him or herself an atheist, because everyone agreed that atheism was (a) incorrect, and (b) destructive of morality and the social cohesion that is grounded in morality.
During the past 300 years, the idolatrous worship of progress and/or reason has slowly replaced religion (in both senses) among Western elites. As monotheistic religion has declined, a small minority of people who are utterly tone-deaf to the world of the spirit — people with pathologically overdeveloped left hemispheres and atrophied right hemispheres according to Schlain's The Alphabet Versus the Goddess — have started calling themselves atheists. While some of these people behave morally, the overall development is pathological and symptomatic of a collapsing civilization.
Your absurd relativism, and denial of good and bad (or good and evil), is also symptomatic of the ongoing collapse of morality and civilization. And your attachment to atheism–like that of almost all atheists–is so intense, angry, and aggressive, that it caricatures the worst excesses of the "religious fanatics" you profess to deplore. Truly, atheism for you is like unto a religion. And since it is a false god, its worship constitutes idolatry.
Whew. At first I thought you were laying into me, but then I saw it was another "Anonymous" you were replying to. I could comment as "Google Account", but if I ever put anything into my Google profile at all it was a long time ago, probably out of date and almost certainly nothing I would want anyone to look at. "Name/URL" would be fine, only I don't have a URL. Why isn't there simply a "Name" option, I wonder. Anyway I'm Roy McCoy, I spoke with you in Boston. No big secret. They already know who I am, what I think, and where I live and work – whether they're atheists, Talmudic Jews, neocon Catholics, or just plain billionaires.
Roy, I don't really mind anonymous comments in general. But when they're angry, long-winded ad-hominem attacks against me, I don't see why I should spend time publishing and answering them unless the commenter has the guts to use his or her real name–as I do.
The angry, long-winded anonymous has sent yet another angry, long-winded comment, beginning:
"What's in a name, Kevin? Will knowing it make my arguments any weaker? Or yours any stronger? Argue not the man, but his point."
Communications theorist M.M. Bakhtin has shown that the meaning of any message is entirely dependent on the identity of the sender (and recipient) along with other contextual factors including tone, the message's/sender's attitude toward other pieces and styles of discourse (angry parody? friendly parody? pastiche? emulation?) etc. etc. There are times when we may wish this weren't so–for example, when a reputable person is ably refuted by a nobody, yet the refutation is unjustly ignored. But wishing it weren't so won't make it go away.
Due to the ease and proliferation of anonymous speech on the internet, the cyber-sphere is swamped with angry, vapid arguments that nobody would ever have the guts to make using their real name(s). Many of these arguments seem designed to make the target waste his or her time and lose his or her focus due to negative emotions; I assume that this is what some of the more than 1,000 full-time NSA workers tasked with "cognitive infiltration" designed to disable the 9/11 truth movement (as reported by Wayne Madsen) are doing.
So, angry anonymous, if you're going to try to pick a fight with me by leaving an anonymous comment, you're unlikely to succeed.
Reasonable anonymous comments – i.e. those that are intelligent, or at least aren't asking me to waste a lot of time – are always welcome here.
Kevin,
I have always had great respect for your contributions to the Truth Movement. I have read many of your articles and have purchased at least one of your books.
Your view of atheism pretty much stunned me.
I was born an atheist. It was not a conscious decision I had to make. Religion just never made sense to me and there was no viable proof to back it up.
As an atheist I do not worship progress or anything else. I do feel very strongly about justice in the world. I might be willing to worship that if only it existed.
I am not an expert on religions and know little about any other than the Christian religion. I have rejected the Christian religion because it requires believing in Bible miracles that are not supported by any proof.
If a person believes in these miracles without any proof it would be easier for that person to believe unproven lies such as those of the official account of 9/11.
I firmly believe that religious conditioning is one of the main reasons that more people cannot be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.
Almost all of the people I know who are religious will not accept that it was an inside job. They don't even want to talk about it.
Most of the people I know who are not religious are willing look at the facts and most agree with me that the official story is a lie.
In my opinion the Christian religion is used for mind control of the masses.
I am thankful I was born an atheist.
Larry Payne
Kevin,
I have the utmost respect for you and your public stand on getting the truth out about the events on 9/11/01. I support your efforts in that regard wholeheartedly. I hope that you are offered your job back (if you would want it), and that the UW system compensates you for their mistreatment of you. I would love to see you (or Richard Gage) debate anyone who would care to defend the party line on 9/11.
With respect to your claim that (the idolatrous worship of) progress and/or reason is pathological, and corresponds to the downfall and breakdown of civilization, I would beg to differ. Insofar as reason is simply the search for truth with evidence, and that we should therefore hold back from accepting religious beliefs and dogma if they do not conform with what we are discovering about how the universe works, no harm can be done to ourselves, our fellow humans that belong to other 'tribes' or races or religions, or to the environment.
A basis for morality that does not include religious beliefs can indeed exist, as Sam Harris points out in his most recent book. We don't need religion to be moral.
I'm not sure if abuses by people, and by governments (either those connected to religions or those that were not) before the Age of Reason were any different from those of today; you seem to want to paint a picture that life before 1800 was somehow better because because people were more spiritual, or something along those lines. To me, it seems that members of the Christian faith, as well as members of the Islam faith, were incredibly guilty of horrendous acts of violence even before the advent of the ideas of the Enlightenment. And they could (and did) certainly claim 'divine' support for their actions when they consulted their respective religious texts.
Kevin, I have to say I too am stunned and saddened by your views regarding Athiesm. As someone who is proud to be "utterly tone-deaf to the world of the spirit (how that world can be defined scientifically, I'm not sure)," I take extreme offense to the notion that the rise of acceptance and popularity of Atheism is largely pathological. By describing it as some sort of imbalance within the hemispheres of the brain, you are implying that the denial of God equates to a mental disorder, or perhaps reflects deficiencies in mental capacity.
Let me just say, without having the space or the desire to fully explain my case for the truth of Atheism, that you are going to offend a lot of people besides me. From my experience, many people in the truth movement are Atheists. Why? Because Atheists question, Atheists rely on evidence and reason, and Atheists really don't like lies being shoved down our throat. Perhaps that is why some of us sometimes seem "intense, angry, and aggressive," as you say. Much like knowing the truth about 9/11 makes one often feel frustrated to live in a world where such a huge lie is swallowed by public by-and-large, such is life as a deterministic materialist Atheist in a religious world.
I would implore you to take more care in your words dismissing Atheism and Atheists so callously. Specifically I am referring to your comment at 8:26 AM on January 16th. If these words represent your true attitudes, than you, sir, have lost a fan.
Here's one person hoping reason and rationality finally overcomes superstition and dogma.
Regarding point 6 above, kindly consult section 4.5 of my e-book: http://www.global-platonic-theater.com.
Love,