So this is a summary of the core right-wing critique of the "New Atheists".

In short, my motivating question will be: "what element of meta-politics did Hitchens miss (and Dawkins continues to miss) which makes him now look stupid, even to people who don't believe in God?" 1/ https://twitter.com/StruanCurtis/status/1306653796622381058

The problem with New Atheists is their implicit embrace of what I will call "Human Ontological & Moral Innocence" (HOMI), the belief that, in the absence of interference, humans naturally tend towards rationality and moral action in a way that produces "ordered liberty" 2/

What is the problem with HOMI? That's easy, it is utterly, demonstrable, and manifestly FALSE. It never works. It HAS never worked. It is one of the core ingredients to progressive follies. It is one of the core bad fruit (if not THE bad fruit) of the enlightenment's legacy. 3/

We see this notion implicitly in Rousseau and Marx. More sophisticated fans deny that these men believed in HOMI, which might be true. It is obvious that HOMI is false, which is why there is a high probability that these philosophers were using the concept metaphorically. 4/

But whether the old philosophers understood this, their modern followers most certainly do not. Not only do modern liberals and progressives assert HOMI explicitly, none of their ACTIONS make any sense without its assumptions (which is more important!). 5/

Without HOMI, we MUST acknowledge man is only CONDITIONALLY good when formed by PROPER discipline, which can ONLY derive from ideology. This moves the question from "how do we liberate man FROM ideology?" to "what is GOOD ideology?". 6/

Obviously, this shows progressive theoretical/practical modus operandi to be radically misguided. Progressives deconstruct and tear down, believing they are going to discover "emancipation" and "equality" underneath the layers of norms and institutions. This never turns out. 7/

Anti-SJW ("liberals") understand this folly in progressives (and talk about it constantly), but they don't understand that this same folly is what underlies their own New Atheist modes and principles. 8/

For instance, without a belief in HOMI, the pursuit of atheism (negative belief) CANNOT POSSIBLY be constructive. You are going to get rid of religion? And replace it with what? Atheism still doesn't answer our core question "what is GOOD ideology?". 9/

Or perhaps I should say does not EXPLICITLY answer. The progressives DO have an answer. They want to keep deconstructing. They don't want to find a good ideology, or ANY ideology for that matter. 10/

After the deconstruction of "God", follows the deconstruction of "whiteness", "capitalism", "gender", "sex", "morality", "the family". The progressives are true believers in absolute HOMI so everything must go in order to achieve emancipation. You know the routine by now. 11/

Liberals, by contrast, scoff at the SJW goal, but in a sense they are worse off. Where is the ground for their ideological vision of the GOOD? Do they even have one? Most want to just go back to old Western norms without religion. But this will not do. 12/

First, obviously, Western norms were GROUNDED in religion. If you blow up the ground then your building doesn't get to stand up elevated by sky-hooks. Nietzsche understood this, modern atheists pretend like they have forgotten. 13/

But furthermore, even if you could pull of a secularized assertion of philosophical norms (a la 19th century secularists), these norms would be vulnerable to the same deconstructionist and skeptical techniques used to attack Christianity. 14/

Get ready for burden shifting, demands for material evidence for metaphysical claims, and of course (the favorite method of both Hitchens AND the SJWs) assertions that the defense of an old concept is a defense of past atrocities done by people who believed that concept. 15/

At this point, it is obvious that modern atheists cannot DEFEND positive statements about ANYTHING without falling on the same barbs they used to skewer Christianity. Therefore we MUST come to the following conclusion. 16/

If you reject HOMI, if you understand history, and have any practical understanding of human reality, or any desire to do practical politics, the question MUST be "how do we develop a GOOD positive ideology". 17/

To this end, purely negative technique are useless, only comparative or positive modes can shed any light on our question. Which means putting away most, if not all, of the New Atheist tools of trade. 18/

When Dawkins publishes a book titled "Outgrowing God" it belies the fact that he STILL believes in, and advocates for, the deconstructionist mindset. He opposes the SJWs publicly but then throws fuel on the fire that makes them grow. 19/

Whether this is an honest mistake or not is not my concern here. But I can confidently say that this strategy is politically counter-productive and intellectually barren, a ceaseless fiddling and wanking as the city burns around you. 20/

Again, this is not a reason to BELIEVE in God, but it IS a reason not to be FOCUSED on atheism. The statement "God is Dead" may be true, it may be the end of our civilization, but it can never, in itself, be INTERESTING. 21/21