New atheism is, by definition, pozzed faggotry.”
- Mike Enoch

Modern man thought that by throwing off the shackles of religion, he could liberate himself to engage in all manner of debauchery while retaining the moral compass that makes liberal, Christian (i.e., white) values possible. This is a thesis of new atheism, which combines metaphysical naturalism with a strong belief in moral realism—specifically, the existence of inalienable liberal rights such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the non-aggression principle, gay marriage, health care, welfare, freedom from discrimination, birth control, etc.

We find a popular articulation of the naturalist worldview in Richard Dawkins' new atheist manifesto, The God Delusion: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference [emphasis added].” Here, Dawkins is absolutely consistent with his naturalism. On naturalism there truly is no evil and no good. Indeed, Dawkins goes further, arguing in The Selfish Gene that man is controlled by selfish pieces of DNA bent on ensuring their own reproduction without regard to the interests of others.

Dawkins, however, is uncomfortable with the implications of mechanistic determinism and so he smuggles in free will and morality. Man, he says, has the ability to override his genetic programming with free will, and that to do so is not only good, but morally preferable. So preferable, in fact, that he's willing to use the force of the state against you to carry out his 21st century schemes of social engineering. (In the light of this, it's boggles the mind as to why so many libertarians are new atheists.)

Dawkins' incessant liberal moralizing can be found in almost every interview, article, and book in which the subject is even tangentially related. Take this snippet: “So we live in the early 21st century, and our moral compass in the early 21st century is quite different from 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. We are now much less racist than they were, much less sexist than they were. We are much kinder than non-human animals than they were—all sorts of respects in which we are labeled with a moral compass.”

What happened to “no evil and no good”? What happened to being robot carriers, “dancing to our DNA”? It's not clear why we should ingest Dawkins' cocktail of liberal values given that they've become blatantly hostile to the survival of our genes. Having ingested the redpill instead, Dawkins' progressive, whiggish historiography is rightfully seen as sheer bigotry toward the current year. The greatest generation's values, full of twenty-first century taboos, were far more conducive to the survival of our selfish genes than the unreciprocated altruism of Richard Dawkins. Despite a lifetime of cucking, he was driven to a stroke by an outpouring of feminist vitriol. (Daily reminder: You can never cuck hard enough; they will always hate you for being a fucking white male.)

Moldbug has an interesting theory about Dawkins' atheism. First, he identifies its tenets: “[I]t appears that Professor Dawkins believes in the fair distribution of goods, the futility of violence, the universal brotherhood of man, and the reification of community. These might be labeled as the themes of Rawlsianism, pacifism, fraternism and communalism.”

He then taxonomizes Dawkins' “Einsteinian religion” with shocking specificity: “My belief is that Professor Dawkins is not just a Christian atheist. He is a Protestant atheist. And he is not just a Protestant atheist. He is a Calvinist atheist. And he is not just a Calvinist atheist. He is an Anglo-Calvinist atheist. In other words, he can be also be described as a Puritan atheist, a Dissenter atheist, a Nonconformist atheist, an Evangelical atheist, etc, etc.”

I have my own theory: Leftists and liberals like Dawkins adhere to a highly subjective moral ontology of feels. But that will have to wait for next time.