T.J. Kirk Wrote Our Friend Chaos: A Look Into Atheist Pseudointellectualism

It's not often that I, the Divine Marquis, criticize Atheism. I either criticize Christianity by calling it a variety of names, cheer for the genocide of Muslims, or make fun of Jews. So, here is a bone thrown to those of you have a superhero for an imaginary friend.

A major problem plagues the Atheist community. In recent years, it has become in vogue to be Atheist. This is partly due to Atheist intellectuals making philosophical arguments based not on Bible verses, but on rational reason. This has bolstered Atheism in the Zeitgeist from being perceived as nihilistic and hedonistic to becoming a rejection of religion in favor of intellectual inquiry. However, this came at quite a cost. Just as whenever social trends change and followers amass to this change, the rejection of the possibility of a Deity is no different.

When people proved the guitar to be far more than a mere rhythmic instrument, that it was as versatile as the piano and as pleasing as the violin, the number of guitarists increased. When it became obvious that the internet could be used for more than just chat forums, hordes of new users flocked online. Like that, when Atheism became popular due to the arguments presented by various intellectuals, people flocked to Atheism.

It is, of course, no secret that every boy who picks up a guitar fantasizes about the day he will be world-famous and touring the major cities, headlining shows, and his music forever changing the audio arts. However, as his fingers stumble to change chords, as he struggles to maintain rhythm, as his melodies begin to sound too similar to each other, he is either honest with himself or others are honest with him. It may remain his hobby, but he hones some other skill to earn his bread, content to accept that his youthful dreams of rock and roll fame will forever remain only in his head.

The same can be said for many writers, poets, artists, and even philosophers throughout history. Who can really tell us how many other Mozarts, Tolkiens, Poes, Coles, and Kants there have been in the many centuries of human civilization? And how many more have also attempted these feats, to add to the human experience what Nature permits but does not grant, the arts which at times make our species' ancient decision to exit the State of Nature bearable? We cannot even begin to approximate the number of notes arranged but never heard, the number of words written but never read, and the number of strokes painted only to remain unseen.

The internet, and the increasing ease of access and its widening availability, have changed all this. There were many essayists in the Enlightenment, yet only some essays achieved circulation, and fewer still remain to posterity. However, the number of video essays on any given topic found on one video hosting website alone likely matches the number of essays composed in the whole of the Eighteenth Century.

Perhaps the most well-known genre of video essay online are Atheist arguments. In the previous decade, an army of young men equipped with cameras, microphones, and access to the internet have repeated (with varying degrees of cleverness and original wit) arguments against god and refutations of religion. Inspired by Dawkins and Hitchens, envisioning themselves to be as capable of such intellectual wit, they eviscerated the religion apologists. One prominent individual was TJ Kirk, better known as The Amazing Atheist.

Not without wit, Mr. Kirk demonstrated a profound ability to refute arguments, put his own spin on old Atheist philosophy, and be generally entertaining. Like many of his ilk, his channel earned him praise and attention, elevating his status and without doubt, his ego. He soon devoted himself to other topics, having outwitted Christians armed only with Scripture verses time and time again. He began to outsmart and outwit the arguments of Progressives, Feminists in particular and to a lesser (but more important extent) anti-White racists.

However, TJ Kirk's nemeses were mostly themselves indoctrinated individuals who fancied their opinions to be facts and themselves to be highly educated. Bible thumpers who had never bothered to read any other books and completely convinced they had it all figured out were not only rhetorically beaten by Mr. Kirk, but made to look like fools as well. Feminists who blamed their self-inflicted misfortunes on the male sex had not only their arguments quickly and handily refuted by the Amazing Atheist, but were also quickly exposed to be at least as dogmatically zealous as religious fanatics. Black supremacists who hid behind the American Cultural Zeitgeist's coddling of their race found themselves given no quarter when confronted by TJ Kirk, and quickly had to resort either concessions or fictions.

Yet with all these victories TJ Kirk's ego expanded. And really, whose would not do the same? Social media platforms are designed to feed narcissism. We excite ourselves with each like, positive comments reinforce our self-image, and these effects combined with common social etiquette make it so that criticism comes across to many as a personal attack.

Mr. Kirk is quite far to the Left on the American political spectrum. He has repeated his support for Socialism in general, and for Bernie Sanders in particular. In addition, while not conceding his former battles to SJWs, he has renounced his campaign against them, focusing on other targets.

Perhaps the figure he has attacked the most vehemently, and with the greatest failure, is Psychology professor, Dr. Jordan Peterson. In response to the professor's book 12 Rule for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, Mr. Kirk wrote his own book which also published in audio format called The Order of Chaos: An Antidote to Meaning. I confess I have read neither book and do not intend for this to be a review. A cursory review of reviews of both gives the impression that Dr. Peterson is trying to give a blueprint of structure for young men to organize their lives while Mr. Kirk is attacking the philosophical dichotomy the professor proposes: that order is good and chaos is bad. 

Let us first take these two descriptions of the book as definitive of each argument; and such a thing would fit. Dr. Peterson is well known for giving sage advice to young men, the kind that many men my age bemoan having never received. TJ Kirk is notable for his understanding of philosophy and a knack for subtle nuance, who, despite being a high school drop out, is clearly well read and self-taught philosophy at least. 

If we accept this, then let us consider the two men in terms of what they are trying to achieve and who they are. Dr. Peterson is trying to give young men some framework for a structured and successful life and Mr. Kirk is trying to refute the professor's arguments. To see whose arguments on the subject of structure should be taken, we should examine each man. 

Let us consider each man should find himself in the following situation. Their fame has vanished, their names are virtually scrubbed from the online world except for what are perhaps private social media pages or a university biography page. In short, their prominence is nothing more than a short-lived flash in the pan and they must make their incomes in some way that does not entail internet fame or social media. 

Dr. Peterson's classroom lectures are something quite entertaining to watch. He discusses not only psychology but its practical uses. Unlike pop psychologists who tell people all their problems are the fault of some outside force, Peterson is a real psychologist, who's advice to a porn addict is "stop jerking off" and not "you clearly have animosity for your parents". He can return to teaching, or privately practice psychology.

Mr. Kirk, on the other hand, is without provable skills. Beyond being entertaining and video editing, what can he offer? He failed at high school, which perhaps is an unfair observation as this is due to societal factors over which he has no control (but factors which he does in fact support - more on that later), but is counted against him regardless of what should be. He would be lucky to find himself employed for a decent income, which is perhaps why he is one of many voices crying for a high minimum wage and a universal basic income. 

This is why I chose to write this piece, of course. Economic retardation infuriates me. TJ Kirk, like many of Bernie's adherents, dismisses concepts of Real Wages (which are in rapid decline now thanks to a guaranteed unemployment payments which act as a sort of makeshift UBI), he understands Malthusian economics, but then advocates for immigration and migration. He decried the lack of empathy in people angry about the destruction of cities in the Summer of 2020, himself exhibiting no empathy for the cities and towns which were now without goods, business owners with lost investments, and persons murdered. He merely repeated, in his effectual way, the talking points of the mainstream.

On his show, his co-host, Paul exhibits a hatred for the South due to its Republican leanings and Conservative politics. On one episode, he and TJ Kirk both complained that if sea levels rise due to Climate Change, people in the South will become refugees to blue states, turning those states purple or red. This is, of course, unbearable as that TJ and Paul both know that in such a situation Right-Wing voters would not change their voting habits, blaming a lack of religion for the shores disappearing as opposed to what they've been warned about repeatedly. Fair.

Now, why have TJ and Paul not complained about Californians fleeing a state that has implemented such terrible Left-wing economic policies and only going to Red states to vote Left again? Why have they not expressed equal disdain for immigrants and migrants who flee Socialist nations only to support Socialists in Capitalist nations? This is double think.

How is Mr. Kirk so capable of double think, the kind of cognitive weakness he is simultaneously so capable of vindictively mocking? It is simple. He is dogmatic. He rejected that Jesus is divine, but wholly swallowed the teachings the Nazarene repackaged and sold to him by Bernie and Kyle Kulinski. He accepts that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven because he dogmatically rejects wealth as the result of virtue. Rather, like many Socialists and Christians, he sees the poor not as victims of their own bad decisions, but of social circumstances. Hence, his rejection of Dr. Peterson's call for young men to structure their lives makes sense. He is a sort of predeterminist, we are set in our places not by our labor and genius, but by outside social circumstances beyond our control.

TJ Kirk is rendered reliant on his online fame due to not finishing high school. Self-taught philosophy means nothing without that otherwise meaningless piece of paper that is a diploma. Yet why does this condemn the Amazing Atheist? Well, because we have socialized education. People are guaranteed a high school education by the State. And, due in large part the central planning he idealizes, Mr. Kirk is viewed as an imbecile and bum. 

In short, he is not as smart as he appeared when he argued with Christians and SJWs. Rather, he was merely repeating Christopher Hitchens and other popular Atheist intellectuals with a clever twist. Philosophical nuance served him in arguments with people who saw things in black and white, yet when confronted with the gray reality of the world: that people were permanently ruined by the Black Lives Matter riots, that a society cannot provide for everyone who comes seeking a handout (or, in real Socialist terms: He Who Does Not Work Must Not Eat), that young men require some sort of structure in order to become something more than a grown child. 

In short, like many modern Atheist Socialists, he committed Nietzsche's First Error. He mistook cause and effect. He saw the genius of Christopher Hitchens (or, his admitted hero George Carlin) and believed the genius to be the result of Atheism. But in fact it is the other way around.