Death Tolls.

*all figures estimations

"Communist Atheism"

• Pol Pot - forced collectivisation etc. - 800 000, as high as about 2 000 000
• Josef Stalin - purges, economic policies, World War II (debatable) - wild estimate, 12 000 000
• Mao Zedong - purges, economic policies - 15 000 000

Capitalist/Fascist Monotheism

• Suharto - crushing of the PKI, invasion of East Timor - 1 500 000
• Lyndon Johnson, J.F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon - war in Indochina, primarily Vietnam - minimum 2 000 000, probably closer to 6 000 000
• Adolf Hitler - absolute minimum 20 000 000, probably closer to 50 000 000
• Aid policy and international economic programs - incalculable tens or hundreds of millions
  

Fuck Ron Paul

I'm seriously sick of the bandwagon-hopping with Ron Paul.

Here's a picture of Ron Paul not taking a swing at Ronald Reagan. Like every Cold War American president, like practically every Republican, and all on his own, Ronald Reagan was a major threat to the human species, and destroyed plenty of lives. Not good enough.

If his individual politics were totally healthy (and in reality, it's mostly only his foreign policy that I find even a little attractive), even mildly associating himself with the Republican Party is simply not good enough. At very best, the American left latching onto Senator Paul is embarrassing and desperate, and at worst (as I suspect it is for many), it is rejecting the real problems of a weak government in an otherwise corporate state, and the problems of America's poor. That even a little hope, much less the massive e-support he's been receiving, can be given to him is a shame, another stain on the steaming pile of shit that is American political discourse. Everyone sane wants civil rights and totally reasonable personal freedoms, but to associate this with Perot-esqe squawks of "flat tax" (and I know this isn't quite what Paul is advocating), and other "libertarian" nonsense popular in the disconcertingly large, wealthy "libertarian" segment of the American political swath is unhealthy and regressive.

Not good enough.

Fuck your religious freedom.

Schizophrenics aren't allowed to commit crimes just because the voices in their head tell them to. Likewise, why the shit should we let religious people bend the law, even in the tiniest of amounts, because their religion says they should? Because their parents and their parents before them were delusional too?

So far as the "But Hitler was evil!" queries about how "religious persecution" is all naughty-naughty, and much of it would be almost invariably about Hitler (as, of course, World War II was far more about nationalism than it was about protecting religious freedom, or it would've started a fair bit before 1939 or 1941, and a generation or two grew up indoctrinated thinking that Hitler makes religious persecution look bad, rather than the other way around, the nationalist argument ("Hitler's fighting us") being stronger than the empathy argument ("He's gassing large groups of his own people")), I have a couple things to say. First off, the Holocaust wasn't about religious persecution, primarily, it was about racial persecution. In many ways, religious persecution often amounts to racial persecution, because most people assimilate the views of their parents, but functionally, the argument was sincerely about racial purity, and it could be said that German (and Polish etc.) Jews were targeted not for their Judaism but for their Jewishness. That is, they were associated with the Jewish people rather than the Jewish religion.

Also, I think murder is invariably worse than the worst of religions. That is to say, neither the individual nor the state should ever condemn someone to death for their religion; or anything else, really. Beyond situations such as police or UN peacekeepers (the only peacekeepers I have any comfort supporting) would be placed in where lives are directly threatened by a person's actions (or, where someone's actions directly affect one's own life) and the decision whether to allow them to continue must be immediate, killing someone (a conscious person who is alive without direct intervention on the part of others, not a fetus or Terry Schiavo or a fish) is never justified. Even then, utmost care must be taken to ensure that such action is necessary, and even then, it is still unfortunate; killing someone is never good, even if it is the "best" course of action. Luckily, at least some among the aforementioned are trustworthy in regard to these decisions. Of course mistakes are made, this is completely understandable in the high-stress situations where such decisions must be made, but there's a risk analysis that must go on here; one must decide on probabilities, and in addition, one must consider the effort that goes into diligence. When any lives are at stake, then arguably any investment of one's time and effort is entirely worth the payoff.

Yes, I'm reading The God Delusion right now (read The God Delusion). But Richard Dawkins is a lot nicer than I am, so you can hardly blame him for my tone, beyond the further examples of the irrationalities of religion than those I already possessed. And all that aside, these are ideas which for the most part I've had for awhile.

The notion that religious people are freed from the law is a wholly valid one. Some examples can be made, and one would best do research into their own country's laws if they desire more. In this part of the world, for one example, there is the issue of tax exemption for religious groups, a contentious one to many. Another debate flaming recently in Britain, along with many places to a perhaps lesser extent, is the legal ability to tell the rest of the world you're not good enough to show them your face, whether you'd like to or not. The fact that there is indeed "debate" here is quite positive, and important, but the numeric strength of those in support of the "religious freedom" point of view is rather discouraging. In my own city, and presumably very very many others, there are exemptions in the noise bylaw for religious organizations.

Why the fuck should people be allowed to be loud just because they're crazy? Obviously if someone's completely nuts, we're not going to fine them for screaming or whatever they do, but we will, if this behaviour will persist, likely put them somewhere where the screaming will not disturb others (I'm not attaching either side of a moral value to this, but rather stating that this is what happens). However, if one irrationally believes they should ring such and such a big fucking bell (or do whatever it is the exemption was even for), they're allowed to do it, and to say they should find a less populated place to do it would be in practice be considered "hate speech". A frustrating aspect of this is that one cannot make "excessive" noise for purely rational reasons, such as, for example, liking the sound of said bell. Both the only required reason and also the only allowed reason is to be able to say "That's my Religion", and one is protected not only legally but societally.

However, by far one of the biggest examples of exemption from law for religious reasons in one quite different from any of these. It bothers me deeply for philosophical, moral reasons, and not just the personal reasons the last example bothers me because of, in that case that I like loud music, but personal reasons for this example are not only present but likely more important to me than those for the last. This example is the idea that "conscientious objector" status is so completely and readily given to any religious groups who ask for them. Again, to not so easily give them such exemption would be considered "hateful" as well, but isn't quite regarded as such for the nearly equally irrational reason of nationalism. (Nationalism is, certainly nowadays, more violent and perhaps more damaging than religion, and in some respects I arguably like it less, but nationalism or even overt racism are more rational than "My God completely and infinitely loves everyone, but will forever dole out infinite and eternal pain to those convinced by His completely designed universe that he doesn't exist"). To use an example from Richard Dawkins himself, one could be an atheistic moral philosopher whose doctoral thesis was about the evils of war, and go through more hassle than someone who quite simply said "Nope, Mennonite, you can't take me" in trying to avoid military service. (And yes, I'm aware that the process for either isn't quite so simple, you can trust me to have looked it up). I'm using way too many brackets, but whatever, criticizing the notion of "religious freedom" is even more offensive than I usually am, and I have to be somewhat more careful than I usually am.

Even without the fears that some apocalyptic war rendering Canada's rejection of its pacifist stances is somehow cosmically likely to be soon, the notion that I should be restricted from avoiding military service because of my beliefs not fitting the societally accepted pattern is indeed disturbing, and also a fair bit reminiscient of the very idea of "religious persecution". Aside from the practical fear this places into me, as I've decided as a very near absolute that I'll never be a soldier at whatever cost that would be to me, I find this notion not only offensive among the highest of degrees, but also irrational as I think all other religiously-justified legal structures.

But that really is just one example, and whether or not it is the most important one (it probably isn't, especially if we're looking internationally rather than in places not as ignorant and backwards as Saudi Arabia or China). Let's think for a second about what these exemptions actually entail. Why is it that such exemptions are allowed? Of course there are the obvious ones: don't piss off the Catholics, they have a lot of kids and they vote, don't piss off the Muslims, they blow you up (the fact that this is dangerous to say is because it's true, obviously in a broad generalization. If I wanted to be exactly accurate, I'd say if you insult Islam publically enough then some Muslims will threaten or commit violence against you or some proxy of you, but surely that much can be assumed without me having to say it. Well no, it SHOULD be assumed without my having to say it, but I said so because it probably isn't. But whatever.).

But the given reason for these exemptions from law is something sort of flaky and weak. The basic premise is that people "should" be "free" to act upon things they're firmly convinced of. Within certain limits, of course, but the thing is, we already have certain limits. They're called laws. So essentially, you're saying that if you really really want to, then it's okay to break a few laws, because that's your religion, and it's politically incorrect to say otherwise. Of course this notion is preposterous, and until you bring "God" into it, everyone would agree with me to say so. The idea is that if you've got a special kind of non-falsifiable want, the type of thing that there could be absolutely no justifiable reason to believe in other than "I want to so there", then that's okay, but if you want things because it actually enhances yours or another's experience in the only life we can ever, ever, ever communicate with each other that we have, then you have to fit within the laws for sane people.

There's a bunch of other "religious freedom" issues I don't like, and I figure I'll outline a couple now.

One of them is an idea I'm not sure if I've heard before, which is pretty new to me, but anyway. I was thinking that academic institutions should be able to revoke degrees, on the basis of a given person rejecting the beliefs that that degree is associated with. See, if you believe in Genesis, you can't accept any of modern geology. Almost no one would complain if you spoke out against a Holocaust denier being accepted as a legitimate historian. They've rejected the methods and the first-hand experience which renders the Holocaust accepted as fact in our society. You'd have to have evidence of equal value to that already accumulated, you'd have to offer it to the world to make its own conclusions upon. Yes, perhaps a book which legitimately gave enough evidence of a sweet-and-friendly 1930's/40's Germany would find trouble being published, but, though history isn't quite science when it come to honesty, I still think that if such evidence could ever, ever, ever be found and offered to the world, if would have been by any of the many Holocaust deniers this world has. If we looked at it, and it was enough, we'd accept the reality which allowed both that evidence and that of all the physical and experiencial (rather than anecdotal) proof to be true. And it's not going to be a Germany without millions and millions of people dead, which is why we don't accept Holocaust deniers as historians. That's legitimate, and I agree with it. Do I think they should be deported? No. Do I think we should stop them from speaking? No no no no no. Let them write and publish their books. They're crazy, and they're wrong, and you could never, ever find proof that the Holocaust didn't happen, though if you did, we should all know, that's part of the value of free speech. But do I think they should have academic degrees as historians? No, I think to have that you should accept at very minimal the methods proposed by your discipline, and only reject the knowledge if it doesn't follow from that method, and if it that's the case, point it out until it does, and then get your degree. But an academic degree carries with it the assumption that one has accumulated and accepted the knowledge associated with their area of study. If they haven't, then they shouldn't be able to claim that they have and use it for their own purposes.

Likewise, of course, if you don't agree with geology or evolution or astronomy or anything else which the scientific method has given us knowledge which clearly and explicitly contradicts the teachings of the bible, you shouldn't be able to hold degrees in the former if you really believe in the latter.

This whole issue leads into another point I want to make.

If you're not qualified for a particular job or position, you shouldn't be allowed to have it. If you're not smart or mature enough to be given a certain responsibility, then you shouldn't. But it shouldn't have anything to do with your age, and a mature, intelligent, competent young applicant shouldn't be denied over an age-of-personness less mature, less competent one. If your job requires heavy lifting, and you can't lift heavy things, you shouldn't have that job; generally, someone who can lift heavy things should have that job. Your "womanness" and the other applicant's likely "manness" aren't the issue; at issue is your's and his respective abilities to lift heavy things.

I tried to think of a "race" example, but there are no applicable ones. The practical differences between different races are so completely miniscule as to be irrelevant in any area I can think of. The point, however, should still be clear. On average, men are stronger than women, and as much as it's annoying to me personally when people harp on about innate biological differences, the fact of this is still completely apparent. It's not even quite that "men just have different bodies"; I mean, it sort of is, but it's better if you think of it in terms of averages. Genetic differences on our crazy crazy Y chromosomes predispose us to being, on average as a group, more physically strong, particularly in regards to those muscles which would be useful for, say, lifting things. However, along will inevitably come some women with more physical strength, and some with less. Because genetics is complicated, sometimes this will come with other "male" traits", some without, and some in the middle. Sometimes this will happen but it'll be coincidental. The important point though is that, yes, qualification for jobs which require upper-body strength do "have to do" with sex, in that those qualified, because logically we would base qualification, all other things being equal, on heavy lifting ability, will more often be male. Most will be male, some will be female. It "has to do" with sex, in that if you looked at averages over a long enough time scale at all, you would see a legitimate correlation. But absolutely no one in our society would accept only hiring males for such a position because they're better; in fact, you'd do worse "on average" if you had such a hiring policy, because, presuming you have enough of a sample size workforce, you're going to be missing out on women that are stronger than the men you hired in their place.

(I want to go a bit into an issue that's important to me before I make my larger point.)

By the same model, if a particular job requires intelligence and maturity and ability to make decisions (and all do to varying extents, but we'll for simplicity's sake say one has this requirement specifically high), exclusatory hiring policies on the basis of age are illogical (and therefore wrong). If one were to hire people exclusively on their competency for the position, one would see an age curve that places younger people, particularly much younger people, nearer the bottom in an order of prevalency. Indeed, cute as the world seems to think "smart" 8-or-so-year-olds are, they're rarely too bright or mature or capable of anything useful at all, they're usually just good at doing what they're told, which I guess renders them competent in a few other capacities, but that certainly isn't part of this discussion. What I'm getting to is that a legitimate statistical analysis in our varied human population shows that capability to do a particular job varies with respect to constant independent variables. There are dumb 18 year olds and dumb 28 year olds, and there's a lot of both. There's also smart 18 year olds and smart 28 year olds, and not many of either, but a fair few more smart 28 year olds. That doesn't take anything away from the smart 18 year olds, and it shouldn't take their jobs away, nor should it take away the jobs of the even rarer equally-capable 16 year olds. Only when one's age directly interferes with one's capacity to do a particular job should that affect one's right to have it. Only astrologists think your birthday affects anything though. I should likely save this for another blog, there's a point to be made too about how we have tests for drivers' licences, and there's no reason that an incapable 17 year old should be given preference over a capable 15 year old. If the younger one can't do it, you don't give them their licence, but if they are, you do. If the older one can't do it, you don't give them their licence, but if they are, you do. That's how it should work.

I'm a fair bit off topic though. The point I'm trying to come to is that one should be given a job, and allowed to hold that job, based on their ability to do that job well. Yes, men are usually better at lifting heavy things, and yes, people of a certain age usually know more and think better than those younger than them (I didn't say "older people" because old people are more frequently dumb too, and I didn't say "usually" because everyone is usually dumb). But this gives us no reason to hire only men or people over, say, 25 or 17, to do a particular job. You'll reduce your quality of work on average if you do, and besides all of that, it's morally wrong, because it's hard to get a job, and one should be given if on their basis of their ability to do it. You hire good heavy-lifters, not men, though it'll usually be men because on average, men are better heavy-lifters.

Anyway, what we come to is that a car will never look at the person in the driver's seat (well, yet, though they'll probably decide to do this eventually) and say "You're not old enough, I'm going to fudge the steering a little". Someone's fridge is never going to X-ray-goggles your shorts and see what stink-stuff you're walking around with, and decide not to let you lift itself because you've got the girlier version. Indeed, fridges don't care about anything really, but even the physics and physiology of lifting them don't care about your privates or chromosomes. They care about strength and leverage and such, and these things correlate with but do not stem from your sex.

However. And this is the important however, the however I've been working at for... lemme check... 3 or 4 excessively long paragraphs. A difference is made in your ability to teach things if you don't believe in them. If you believe in the bible, you don't believe in science (this is a generalization, but it is true enough to ignore the complicated bits of it for now), and you're not going to do as good a job of teaching it. Your choice is between saying something you don't believe in, and telling your students something that goes against all of the legitimate knowledge the scientific method has allowed us to discover (and because of this, would probably be wrong, and because of the nature of the scientific method, even if it isn't wrong, would not be worth believing until there is legitimate reason to do so, and so far as the vast majority of religious teaching goes, there isn't any).

So I'll say this explicitly. A person who doesn't believe in evolution (one of the best justified, most accepted, most logical, most intuitive of scientific theories, far more so than, for example, Newtonian gravity, which we do teach because it's useful) should not be allowed to be a science teacher. Science works, and it has a strong basis in logic. We teach it in schools because it works, because it's completely fair and objective: to the truth. If you disagree with that, while you should be allowed to (freedom of thought is absolute, I'll get to that), you shouldn't be allowed to teach science. And because science works, you shouldn't get to interfere with its teaching, either.
If you don't like it, you're free to find evidence of whatever you think and publish those findings. If there's evidence in favour of the bible which is strong enough to contradict a century and a half of biology (say; we're using evolution as a practical example), then publish it, and if it is good enough, it will be accepted into science. But if this could happen, it would have. It hasn't. So don't try.

Religion works in other ways, too, it likes control (control is a memetic selection advantage). Religion says other things too, but in the spirit of pulling back to the original topic and maybe finishing this before Monday, I'll pick an example I already introduced. Being a good school teacher depends on one's ability to interact with students. Good students will only care about their teacher's attachment to Allah if it affects what is taught. They certainly won't be bothered about whether they have an Iranian or an English teacher, and it won't affect the quality of teaching, even on average. Even were it simply an average that English teachers taught better, they still shouldn't be prefered, but really, race hasn't anything to do with teaching ability, so such a racist policy would be totally nonsensical. Going back though, a teacher does need to be able to interact with her students. And if she has something in front of her face, it's harder to interact with them. That's really kinda the point, so far as I know. Even if it's not, it changes the nature of the interaction. It alters the teaching ability. And because of this, it should alter whether or not one is allowed to teach. If it is proven that it doesn't alter teaching ability, then it shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not one is allowed to teach. But I think it does, I think it can be proven it does, and so I don't think we should hire teachers who cover their faces.

Perhaps now is the time to talk about something important. A Christian would not be allowed to cover her face to teach. A Muslim would. This is, by definition, "religious discrimination". Specifically, in case you somehow miss it; the Muslim is allowed to do something that a Christian, or especially an atheist, would not. Because of the person's Christianness, or Muslimness as opposed to non-Muslimness, a distinction is made within the application of reasonable, existing rules. This is religious discrimination, and it is wrong, because this type of religious discrimination discriminates on the basis of things which don't affect the situation. A person with something over her face is not as good a teacher as she would be, and because there's competition for teaching jobs, she shouldn't be allowed to teach, because she'll be worse than any given other teacher looking for the job.

Of course, were she to decide that her beliefs in aspects of Islam which affect her teaching (if she's a math teacher, it probably wouldn't be much beyond the face thing), then there would be no reason we can know from the situation that she's a worse teacher because she's a Muslim. In fact, pretty well all the people I've talked to from Asian/Muslim countries say they have far accelerated math programs, on average, so on average, she might even be a better math teacher, but the average here doesn't matter, her ability as a teacher does. If it turns out she's good at math, and can teach it well, she should be allowed to. If it turns out she's bad at math, she shouldn't. If she's good at math, but values her religion more than her job as a teacher, and the religion makes the teaching worse, she can continue with the religion, but not the teaching. It's harsh, but at worst we get better teachers, and at best we get less religious people.

So I guess I'll try to bring it to a close now. A lot of the things people get away with because of their religion, it really doesn't bother me, except that they're getting away with it because of their religion. The idea that students should be banned from wearing crucifix necklaces seems absurd to me, because I think people should be allowed to wear whichever necklace they choose. Things like that only cause harm to delicate sensibilities which well deserve to be sacrificed to what I believe is an ultimate right to self-expression. Ironically, by the same logic, I think that exceptions in hate speech laws for religious groups are absolutely absurd and offensive. The notion that people should be allowed to hate someone because the bible says so but not because Mein Kampf says so has no rationale beyond vote-getting. They both make rare good points, they're both probably terrible books, and if you follow everything either says, you're not only insane but a really horrible person. God's such a little bitch, read the bible yourself, I've never gotten to it because it's so terrible a piece of literature. However, I think someone should be allowed to express whichever ignorant hate their ignorant, hateful book tells them to. But not in whichever way they decide to express it, this is key. They should be allowed the same freedom of thought and of speech everyone else should, these freedoms should be absolute, with limits such as, say harassing a particular person. I don't think anti-Semitism as an idea should be banned, but I don't think you should be allowed to attack a Jewish person or a cynagogue. I think you should be allowed to criticize Judaism as a religion, I think you should be allowed to criticize anti-Semitism, but I don't think any of these things should be banned. You shouldn't ban the Judaism, or the anti-Semitism, or the critism. You shouldn't ban words or thoughts, actions, however, are okay. There is debate to be had about where the words should be allowed, and I think that at very least they should not be hidden from anyone, any of them, but beyond that I think debate is legitimate. I'm off topic though.

I'm okay with church bells, and with loud music. Neither offends me. What does offend me is that one is allowed and one is not. This is religious discrimination; certain practices are allowed because they have a basis in religion, and other similar or even identical pracitices are disallowed because they do not have a basis in religion. Religion is irrational, that's what it means, and it follows that harm is being done to parties, they are given fewer rights, because they choose not to be irrational. This is wrong, I can't bring it down to any lower level of logic.

So to close. I think a Muslim woman should be allowed to cover her face, if she so chooses. I think any other man or woman should be allowed to cover their faces, if they want. I don't think that any of them, however, should be allowed to do so in a place or position where it causes harm to others. A person is perfectly qualified to be, say, a librarian with a covered face, but not a teacher. If that distinction is less important to you than your religion, you can be a librarian, but not a teacher. It doesn't matter whether he or she is a Muslim or member of any other religion which tells them to cover their face; it's that they're covering their face, and this interferes with some things but not with others. Everyone should be allowed to cover whichever part of their body or face, and do things which this does not interfere with.

Churches should be allowed to ring their bells. Musicians should be allowed to play music. It is irrational and immoral in the highest degree to allow self-hating religious decisions to take preference over activities done for enjoyment. God isn't real, and so shouldn't enter into our moral equations. The people that believe in god are real, and their preferences and experiences are real, and so harm will be done to them if they are not allowed to ring their bells or whatever, the bells themselves are, obviously, symbols.

I don't think Mennonites should be forced to go to war. I don't think atheists should be forced to go to war. I think conscription is really, really wrong. It doesn't matter what religion you have.

Some religions say you should be able to kill someone, or for a more important example, refuse a blood transfusion to your children. This is wrong, and should be illegal, always. If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you don't get to have your chance religious convictions have your child brought to death. And if you're not a Jehovah's Witness, you shouldn't have your chance convictions have your child brought to death. Laws should exist, we should be allowed to play loud music but not to kill people, we should be allowed to say offensive things but we shouldn't be able to spray paint offensive things on people's homes (not because it's "private property" in the economic sense, but because it's "private property" in the personal, where-they-sleep sense). We should be allowed to believe in whichever god we'd like, or none, and we should be allowed to say that you're absolutely dumb for doing so, and we should be allowed to say we're not sure, and we should be allowed to say that there are justifications for believing in god, and that an infinite being with any given characteristics is possible, but unlikely, and not worth our time to believe. We should be allowed to write a book that contradicts the Pythagorean theorem, but we shouldn't get to teach math if we do, and we should get to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but we shouldn't get to help send rockets into space if we do, because such belief interferes with our ability to do so.

So those are the two main points. We should be allowed to do some things and not allowed to do others, and it should have nothing whatsoever to do with our beliefs. What our beliefs should have to do with are the things that are directly affected by them, like our ability to teach things that contradict them.

The third point is that I'm tired, and it's late, and I've written a lot, so I'm going to bed. There's plenty more blogging in the future though, at least eventually, some issues that came up here, and more that didn't, and still a fair bit more I haven't even thought of yet. So I'll write you later. For now, think, and have fun.

Reflections on the Capitalist Problem

Hello everyone. I haven't written at all since August, not a word for the entire duration of what is now more than half a semester. I've been rather busy, school and such will do that. But I figure I'll write now, it's about time. In addition, I've been in one of those wonderfully productive upswings where I'm good at everything I try and I'm thinking and writing and thinking, and not failing everything I try, just generally doing lots of things and doing them pretty well. Hence the busy, but I suppose if I'm able to think and do again, it'd be best if I got back to this.

So right into it.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about a lot of things, many of which I'll hopefully someday get to blogging. A bunch of politics and justifications and theories and rants. For now I'm going to mostly try to talk about a bit of it, but hopefully I'll eventually be fleshing out further many of the other things I've been thinking about lately, in addition to everything else notable that'll go through my head.

One of the things I've been developing my head is the idea that every function of society can be expressed as the exchange of rights for a person or group of people, either for/with themselves or with others, variously defined of course. On one hand this seems logical and apparent (it's really just another way to phrase "compromise", which pretty well composes the basest and simplest components of social interaction), but on the other hand simplified thusly it forms a useful model. I think I'll leave that for another blog though, there's a fair bit to be said on it.

What I really intend to discuss are my current thoughts on the danger the economic structure of our society poses not only to those alive now but to the future of human development itself.

One tricky bit of it all is that there's a bit of a distinction between ideology and practice. So high the screams of "it works in theory"; everyone knows that communism, or Communism (maybe more the former, maybe more the latter, it depends), never works, but really, if you ACTUALLY know anything, the "state capitalist" contortions so oft or always found are so against the fundamentals of proletariat liberation... it's an argument so frequently used I needn't go there. The fact is, people are really fucked, and there's too many of them for it to be easy at all, if indeed possible, to make good decisions applicable to everyone, and apply them. The problem is really that capitalism (which I'm pretty sure is always a little c, regardless of how far it pushes Big) is ideologically bankrupt, irrespective of the actual application. I know it's not valid to say that an idea should be supported irrespective of application, but the fact is that the practical problems of both capitalism and communism are both readily apparent, and debatable. That's not my point.

Capitalism is a tricky idea to work with itself, as is communism. They've both been pretty heavily altered and confused and permutated over a whole course of political and intellectual events, which is pretty obvious. The basic definition is pretty standard though; the one I'll be using, and the one I pretty well always use, is a system which recognizes an axiomatic value of capital, and rights of the individual (legal or otherwise) to exercise upon ownership of said capital. The latter seems the more heavily used, because it's probably more relevant, but I think it's less integral to the original concept.

The point needs to be made, in case anyone reading this blog could miss it, that I'm adamantly individualist, personally and politically. I probably value "interesting" more than anything, and the idea that everyone or even anyone need dedicate their being to some State or Nation or flag or whichever, that just appalls me, and seems thoroughly counter the ideals of individualism such conflicts are often said to be fighting for. But that's another debate. The point is, I think it's morally invalid (by which I mean, because this certainly has to be defined "my definition of good"; it's pretty well presupposition before that) to supersede the rights of the individual to exist as a new and creative person; until it interferes with the rights of other individuals to do the same.

(I do have the odd, sometimes uncomfortable meritocratic leanings, I think there's some validity to it. The practical problems with that, however raise too many questions to a this point make it worth suggesting realistically. I do think that it's certainly worth considering for consideration's sake, and I'm leaving "anti-intellectualism" for another article, but for now suffice it to say that although I do think individuals should absolutely recognized by society and by each other by their individual needs, personalities, abilities, interesting quirks, etc., insofar as is appropriate, the current methods in place for society to do so are illegitimate, ill-conceived, and inappropriate.)

Coming back, it is precisely this supersession which I think invalidates capitalism. I know it's a point I keep coming back to, but it's a point so many seem to be ignoring; we live on one planet. Whatever your thoughts on anti-intellectualism, it's really not that mathy to count to 1. We're going on 7 billion roughly independent consciousnesses, 7 billion, and I'm going to keep saying 7 billion because it's coming soon and that needs to be acknowledged, 7 billion chunks of selfish-gene juice, all members of what is arguably the most successful species we're aware of. We haven't the biochemical genius of so much bacteria, we can't really fly or swim or run or sleep in the snow too well, but we've done something far, far, far, far, far, far more important than any of these; art, and arguably even consciousness. See, a fly really doesn't care if you kill it. Fuck you PETA, a dog probably does, but a fly doesn't. Even supposing it's "conscious", it's not that conscious. It'll know enough if it's not getting enough food to smell somewhere else for something conspicuously rotting, but that's just because it's chemicals wouldn't be arranged the way they were if they DIDN'T find food when they needed to. People are a wee bit different. We care, we very much care, and there's really no scientific, psychological, or philosophical way around that; consciousness is the most unavoidable tenet of thought, for obvious reasons. We're conscious, and importantly, we're differently conscious. You aren't me, you aren't her, you aren't him, she's not him, he's not me, etc. We all eat, we all shit, we all live here. We're all cozy roomates really, but we can almost none of us afford to so much as step outside the door.

As soon as you get different consciousnesses, you get different wants and needs. Or the same wants and needs for the same things. In a lot of ways people are far too similar and not enough of them realize it, but in another way, if we're all simultaneously existing, we're all differently existing.

The ultimate question of a society, of a social moral system, is to the resolution of this question. Who gets what?

Given that the fundamental point of capitalism is the rights regarding capital, it follows in theory and in practice that rights of the individual come themselves from capital. This suggests quite immediately (and one must recognize that in our society capitalism as an economic system is checked by various social insitutions, like government or church) that those with capital are the most powerful, and it follows from the idea of a capitalist society as well that this would lead to the attainment of property. I'd certainly argue, and have, that property is severely overvalued, by definition really, in the capitalist structure our society holds such an idol, but the fact is that, best as anyone can guess, we all base some or all of our existence in some of this unfortunate objective reality, in which we all share our finite resources, to contribute to our varied subjectivities.

I might get beat up by all the rationalist materialists (materialists of the "I believe in it if it exists" variety, not the "I have three Porsches" type) I hold so dear for saying this, but really, I think subjective realities are a lot more valuable than objective ones for this simple and logical reason: it is only subjective realities from which value even arises. What can "value" be without some knowledge of it? No, a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it doesn't make a sound, a sound is something you hear, by common use if not by strict definition, and you can't hear something you're not there to hear. You could if you were there, but you're not, we already said you're not. The point is, things only have value if people experience them, and it is this experience that we really should be, as a society, looking at. I get that either economic system has as its basic goal whichever distribution of such experience it sees as right, but it's an important point regardless.

I think then that the legitimate division of material value could be arrived at two ways, and I'm having a hard-as-hell time deciding which it is. I sincerely can't pick one, with the first I feel guilty if somewhat honest, with the second I feel like I'm being somewhat deceptive, to myself, but it seems the more logical when I stamp out any notion of hierarchy of consciousnesses.

The first idea is that the supremacy of existence lies with aesthetic, with beauty, with the highest and most/least organized organizations of all the everything, objective and subjective, to be done. Sure the unarranged arrangement of all the perceptibly boundless universe we have is pretty impressive, but I think a little consciousness goes a long way. There's a part of me, a big, at many times probably dominant part of me, that thinks the highest achievements of our being lie in the realm of some created experience within the realities to which we play party. Literature, sex, music, or on a larger scale, creation of a society in which thoughts are transparent and fluid, these things are conscious, intentful, and interesting. These things, I think (whether I should or not, and I'll get to that) are important, arguably the most important. What I think is not important is alcohol, getting a house three inches bigger than your neighbour's, getting cozy with your economi... sexual partner and 3 kids (push your genes above the average and all), buying shit from the right store. These things are not interesting, these things are horribly uninventive; you're doing exactly what you're told, whatever consciousness and will could ever be involved is impossibly irrelevant.

There's the second idea though. This is the idea that there's a lot of people that are dirt fucking poor, and/or (it's usually and) have a fairly good chance of getting shot, or at least shrapnelled. It's in a way, and this is dangerous ideological territory but it is legitimate, it's not quite so bad due to our relativistic, "as long as it's whatever the cool kids are doing", nature of our experience. If you've got three potatoes and a blunt axe you're really not doing too well, but you're doing better than the guy wich two potatoes, and if you can see him, if he's actually living near you and breathing your air and drinking your water (whichever too-damn-much of it, argument's sake we'll say it's less than you drink), you know you're better off, and I'd say unfortunately, it helps. It's of course fortunate in that feeling bad is bad, and people really shouldn't, but it's unfortunate in that it serves so well to soothe and sedate. People can in a lot of situations see when they're better off, but the better mass media gets, and regardless anyway, they get to see when they're getting screwed, and whether or not they see it, it's an elitism and arrogance even I wouldn't touch to say they should be. There's something of a consensus with psychologists (I'm really really pretty sure or I wouldn't say it, though it's definitely a consensus among a lot of people in general) that the actual value of wealth, to people themselves, diminishes sharply and exponentially after some fairly low point, and it seems quite logically invalid (if we presuppose that the best system is that which does the best good for totality of human existence, an opinion clearly not universally excepted, even by me, and possibly even a minority opinion in the world) to suggest anything other than total redistribution of wealth, at least until some basic standards are met.

What may be most frustrating, and this I guess is as good a time as any to point it out, is the focused racism (and the more general, really broad "You're darker/You're from this side of this line" kind of racism, on its own) which constitutes the modern notion of "family". Families are a pretty logical social and economic insitution, the idea that the groups we physically start off right near, and share our genes with, that we'd hang out with these people and split a side of caribou when it comes up. It's logical, but it's totally invalid if you're going to rally behind the "individualism" so many right-wingers insist on. There are two distinctions between "you're my brother" and "you're my White brother"; one is simply scale - it's a question of genetic/ancestrial closeness. The other, the one I'd say is at least a little legitimate, is the question of who it is you've for the duration of your life shared it with. But if you're going to allow that concession, it's not about "family", it's about "community", and aside from the fact that estate taxes don't apply so much to "community", there's another fun C word that's going to come and nibble your hand, and if you've made it through quite nearly invented words like "supersession" and "shrapnelled", you're linguistically astute enough to figure out what it is. My main point is, unless you see relevance in ancestry, in which case it's simply a question of scale any opposition to slavery and segregration (I'm really trying not to do the whole ad hom/ad hitlerum thing, but it's what I'm coming so close to just logically), you really can't support the typically biological/marriage notion of family which allows for the dynastic transfer of possession of possessions our capitalism so insists and structures itself on.

To return though, I've got two ideas. One's that the most beautiful, the most climactic, the most emotionally (if not, and even almost certainly not, materially) intense and active positions and designs of existence are the morally correct. The other is that people are a little busy to concern themselves with things, and the most valuable and correct course of societal action is to allow everyone the basics of existence itself, and later (or not) deal with the further issues of ascent to something greater; that basic comfort for existence for everyone is superior to superior existence for some.

The important point is though, capitalism doesn't work for either of these ideas.

With the first point, art plays entirely with the subjective, and within a materialist (really more the Porsche one now, but i guess it could be both at this point) capitalist perspective it's kind of meaningless. The fact is that our society isn't fully enough capitalist for that to quite be relevant. What really happens is that the objective, material funding required to maintain a basic standard of living (hold mention of a life interesting enough to be useful in the generation of aesthetic) must come from somewhere, and due to the basic functions of capitalism outlined, this'll be with the richest, rather than the even the "rich", which don't comfortably exist at equilibrium. It seems at once narrow-minded to think, and yet at the same time startlingly obvious (I hope the two don't feed each other), that when you have a system of focused wealth (and a method for maintaining this focus, i.e. the nature of investment, and "family"), of, logically, concentrated power, than it is this focus which controls the nature of art. I have far more faith in artists, of course, than to think that art could suddenly disappear in any such form of societal existence ever, but the whoring out of oneself does more damage to this first, aesthetic-centred view of morality than I think capitalism could ever abolish.

So on to the next one. I'm sort of summarizing and leaving out and forgetting points, but it's 4:00.

The other idea, standard lefty political correctness stuff as it is, is a lot easier to present as opposed to capitalism. It's just sort of natural, not to mention that it's a century or three of political thought doing so. In case the point needs made, if you have entrenched (the family thing, and the investment, again, and I'm not an economist so I can't phrase perfectly), ruling class (by nature of the value placed on capital), wealth, and probably more important, if society's values are determined by the ability of an individual to accumulate capital, those with do so exponentially, and those without fall off sharply. Capitalism is directly ideologically opposed to any economic equality. You can have some capitalism and some economic equality, but if it's all of one than it's none of the other.

And since no good arguments have brought me to seeing another viewpoint as morally valuable (beyond the individualist artist/societal comfort ones I just suggested), and since capitalism interferes with either of these, it can't be right. I'm not saying I'd love to hear an alternative moral standing, but I certainly should if there's a better one. The question, however, is precisely where from the opposition would come. The hardest English speaking right, properly occupied, would do well to concern themselves with Jesus's popular denunciations of materialism. The economic right/social lib type people, who actually tend to be the intelligent ones, are almost exclusively individualists, which is legitimate, but what exactly the need or want of the individual(s) they wish fulfilled, and which individual(s), are rarely explicitly stated. It seems odd, and unlikely, one'd find a better arrangment of individualists beliefs than my own (in no way do I mean that mine is best because it's mine and I'm just like that; rather, it's been a rough but direct reasoning process from conscious experience to moral system. It also gets uncomfortably right-wing, meaning I've been paying attention and probably haven't missed a step). If there is one though, by all means. Different is interesting, and interesting is good.

There's more I should be writing about this, and everything else. Anti-intellectualism soon, I hope. I need fucking sleep though, it's four oh fucking clock. And eleven. All the usual "look at me be word-witty" closing comments, as usual, the usual "I'm busy, but I'll try to write". Yep. And it's all true. But I need sleep. So I guess for now, be happy and interesting, and help others do the same. I mean, that seems simple, but really... it's really not. But do it anyway. Goodnight.

Why I don't like "feminism"

I'll firstly have to state, if not a disclaimer, at least an explanation to provide some context. Everything I write on this blog is intended to be taken as-is, accepted as my personal writings and judged on their individual merits, and they are to the best of my knowledge, the best truth available to me. And I'm usually right. But it's also about 5:30 on a summer's Monday morning and I'm very, very tired. And I've just been through a lot of Wikipedia-ing, followed by a LOT of bullshit anti-porn propaganda I made myself travel through on the tug of my oh-so-powerful curiosity, and now I have to blog. So my mind's pretty fucked and messy, and I long ago abandoned the feeling that I'm firmly seated in my own thoughts. I don't feel like I'm at my most rational of times, but I probably am. But I ramble.

The greater context is among the horrible, horrible isolation and boredom of summer, and my own personal political upset where I've come to severely question, though probably not reject, my entire political outlook. Various readings, thoughts, and television programs (notably, I (my mother) purchased Penn and Teller's Bullshit!; it's good), have probably all had some part in causing this, but it's probably also largely a consequence of my own independent thought processes.

What strikes me as interesting is that, if I consider this as that sort of youthful rejection of authority, viewing one's own views not so much as one's own, but rather those enforced upon them through their upbringing, the fact that my views have almost exclusively been associated with an almost humorously extreme political left (and continue to be), I'm very much an exception to the rule. The standard expression of such a rite of passage, as it's considered, is that a teen decides to rebel against their wonderful, perfect family values (ironic hyperbole will of course be used here, as is typical of me, for you less-than-astute readers), and sink into a pit of God-hating communism (or whatever devilish leftism) which can last anywhere from a week to a decade. At which point they "mature", are somehow exposed to the "real world" and have their proper, conservative opinions fully solidified.

But obviously, this is not the case for me.

My mother is, of course, something of a political lefty herself. And of course, this has influenced
my political beliefs. Such would be unavoidable. Taking the position that political beliefs are primarily, if not necessarily, based on experience, I would've had to make a full effort to compose the majority of my life of things separate from my mother and her beliefs. Which'd be not only very difficult, but unreasonable.

And now I come to a central conflict in my head. Despite my awareness that delusion is practically unavoidable, I'm thoroughly opposed to self-deceit (or any other falsity) on all levels. So I do the best I can to apply as much logic and reason to my worldview as possible. But because of the pervasiveness (I can't believe I had to use a fucking thesaurus to find that, but it's 6 in the morning and it was on the tip of my proverbial tongue) of denial and self-deceit, I find it practically impossible to decide whether or not I'm deluding myself into believing myself delusion free. A typical self-conversation follows thusly:

Maybe I'm lying to myself. Maybe my entire concept of existence is false, or at least falsely based. But at least I'm questioning myself. That separates me from a lot of people, and that insistence on logic and reason means my opinions are probably strongly based. But wait; everyone else believes their opinions are strongly based, and this solitary instance of questioning [to myself and beliefs, specifically my belief about beliefs] can hardly be given as evidence for logical soundness in all other intellectual endeavors. Besides, current science, which is probably the strongest logical authority, has said the structure of the human brain is such that opinions are not typically based on logic, but rather formed and then compared against evidence. There is a known preference for [holy fucking fuck I got off the "feminism" thing quick, I'll try to get back] evidence supporting one's beliefs; hence if I suppose I am excepted from this rule of human behaviour because I form opinions only if they are based on proof, it is possible - if not probable, if not certain that this very belief is based on faulty reasoning. However, I am aware of this. Because of this awareness, and my firm belief in reason, I would likely combat natural urges to illogic...

And so the pattern continues. If it's that miserable and complicated to read, just imagine thinking it.

ANYWAY, I've travelled very far away from my original point. What I intended to say was that, given that my own instated "family values" are those which speak strongly against "family values", supposing I'm having one of those rite-of-political-passage episodes, mine would be atypical of this oh-so-conservative society. Not in the least because the standard political beliefs these rebellions escape from hold more closely the repression of political thought and independence. The very political beliefs my mother, intentionally or otherwise, indoctrinated me with were against indoctrination, and strongly for independence of thought. So I've grown up with this independence thing, and have had my opinions against my mother, and she's accepted that, and I have for as long as I remember, and do now, hold independence of thought very strongly.

But my mother has described herself, her parenting of me, and even me, as "feminist".

At this point in my life I must challenge this.

Though I grow weary of the disclaimer, it is sometimes required to have honest opinions honestly interpreted. To make my opinion understood properly, I must offer words which may seem to contradict it. This is not so. In reality, I accept that the best way to phrase my opinions maybe interpreted in a way which contradicts them, and I don't want this to be so. So:

I like women. Obviously. I have a strong belief that a man can be a heterosexual or a misogynist, but not both. And in my personal experiences I've often enjoyed, respected, or found interesting females more than males. But I'll quit this explaining.

The primary problem with feminism is that it's sexist. The secondary problem is that it's degrading to women.

Of course, it's taken as a given that both of these qualifiers are the direct opponents of feminism. But of course there's trouble when anything is taken as a given, that's usually based on popular thought, and people are stupid. And there's trouble with classifying singularly such a wide spectrum of political thought. I think it's understood that, since what follows is my primary criticism of feminism, feminism that doesn't fall victim to these issues is something I strongly support. I haven't gone conservative on you all. I've reaffirmed and reanalyzed (and I should point out here, though it's a little late into this article, that it's a continuing process) my own beliefs, acknowledging whatever validity is to be found in conservative positions and deciding which of my own beliefs cancel each other out. In the past weeks or months over which this has occurred, I've probably accepted traditionally right-wing viewpoints into my own - kinda. Really, I've simply tried to better structure my own beliefs, so that the ways that I think and say I want society as a whole to act (politics is best defined as this, as the way an individual or group believes society should act) are based as logically as possible on my own understanding of morality. Primarily, rather than right-shifting all or any of my beliefs, it's simply served to combat bias in favour of supposedly left-wing positions I don't really hold. If anything, in doing this, I've solidified my beliefs, possibly left-shifting everything. But anyway, feminism.

Sexism. That it needs to be stated that "feminism" (an ideology whose word base is the Latin stem for "woman") is inherently sexist is a little odd. However, it draws strength from the fact that our society has for a long time been, and probably still is, male-controlled. I still very much believe this to be true, I still like the likeable women (and the likeable men), and I still see some merits in feminism. As should be obvious, this angle of feminism is supported on the same merits as black affirmative action. It is posited that, because of an imbalance in the system, a fight for equality, which feminism is almost always stated and often considered to be, must correct this imbalance, by supporting the oppressed side. And again (again again again), most of our societies are oppressive against women, I won't deny that. But the fact that supporting one side of a conflict brings one into conflict with the Other is unavoidable.

At this point I'm going to have to make a tricky distinction. The primary and secondary problems I referred to were, and I'm genuinely just realizing this now (gimme a fucking break, it's 6:30), really both just sexism and sexism. Against men and against women, respectively, and though this is very true it's also highly simplified. The sexism against men is far more obvious, it's apparent in the etymology and it's a common theme for anti-feminism (itself sexist, and despite having some valid points about feminism's sexism, is often far more sexist itself).

The most well meaning, equality-loving versions of feminism work hard to liberate women, but of course, as I've said, in the process of doing so must make a sexist distinction, if only to reverse society's own distinctions. Feminists may say they respect men equally, and often do, but their actions are inherently sexist. They're making a discrimination based on sex, however fairly based it is. This is hypocritical for a system claiming to be so strongly against sexism.

(Okay, so there's some feminists that openly claim to hate men. But these are the minority. Feminism by overwhelming majority claims to believe in equality, whether or not this is true. This is required for someone intended to be taken seriously in opposing repression on the grounds of its repressiveness, otherwise one becomes a blatant hypocrite. Ironically, this defensiveness may be part of the very female weakness that feminists fight, but I'll get into THAT sexism in a sec).

But anyway, aside from the completely unavoidable sexism involved in feminism, there's the sorta-unavoidable bit: to strengthen an oppressed group of people, which is one of the methods of freeing them from oppression (the other being telling the oppressors to stop), one must convince them, and others, of their virtues. The nature of oppression, especially of such a large group as women (a majority), is such that the oppressed group is seen my many, including the oppressed, as weak. The problem is precisely such that feminism, accurately or otherwise, makes the assumption that because our society is male-dominated, so too are its values. Hence, to show that women are equal to men requires that they either possess these same values, or possess their own, equal values. The latter is obviously more common, but the problems with this I feel I must now explain.

There seems to be a habit of the same people who say they believe in "diversity" saying they believe in "equality". They're usually aware of this, but defend it by saying that people are different, but still equal (of course, reminiscent of "separate but equal"... but perhaps I'm stretching). However, "equal" is a mathematical and logical term. It means things are the same. If people are not identical, than it must be their "values" that are identical. The problem with this is that it makes people quantifiable things, which a lot of these equality-diversity people are also opposed to. So they're hypocrites.

Of course, these people are almost all lefties, I'd say like myself, but they aren't quite. Especially now, now I've gotten tougher with enforcing the whole skepticism thing (look up the actual concept if you want to know the meaning I'm referring to). I do indeed believe that people should be given equal rights, but this is due in large part to the fact that humans' inherent prejudices make it difficult to account for our individual differences fairly on a large scale. I think that we should be given "equal rights" precisely so that we can be judged on our individual merits, these being allowed to develop fairly and properly. Not because I believe all people are equal, which assumes that either people are all identical or people are (easily) quantifiable, neither of which are properly associated with the political left.

Anyway, so feminists give women their own values to free them from the masculine ones. Which is very sexist, but arguably necessary. However, these values are very quickly and easily seen as superior to the masculine ones, precisely and obviously because of their association with the very oppression being fought. The irony and hypocrisy here is vicious; patriarchal values are viewed by feminists as sexist and harmful, and they are, but this same view is violently sexist.

So that's the obvious sexism of feminism, the one against men. But it's probably not the biggest problem. The biggest problem of feminism, I think, is its degradation and devaluation of women. If you want to ignore my above ramblings about politics and all the other stuff, at least read below.

The second sexism of feminism is also pretty obvious, but it seems far less known or discussed. I've been working very hard, possibly to the point of harm and lack of clarity, to separate this sexism and the former discussed. However, they are quite interrelated, one having notable effects on the other, and both being deeply rooted in the nature of feminism itself, making honest and complete discussion of one flawed without discussion of the other. The simple fact is, in the quest to have equal rights for people of different sex, it is posited that women are the oppressed, weaker sex. What's interesting, and disturbing, and hypocritical and sexist, is that it's suggested that men haven't only dominated historically; "dominance" is a "male value". Lest I seep into the "problem a" sexism discussion, the fact is that the common dichotomies of differences between sex suggest that if men are "dominant" then women are subordinate. It follows far to easily from saying that male dominance is an evil to be fought, to saying that the opposite, or submissive, attitude is appropriate to women, to having the same beliefs about female weakness that patriarchal societies enforce and feminists fight.

Whether or not men are inherently "dominant" or "strong" or this or whatever, and women their own whatevers, is not what I'm debating. I'm pointing out a hypocrisy that prevents feminism from success. The truly respectable, and arguably the truly egalitarian feminists, are those that don't see themselves as victims of an oppressive male society. It is impossible to be the strongest one can whilst viewing oneself as a victim. Discrimination against women can only be fought by pointing out that sexism is invalid. Against men or women. Feminism works on the basis that sexism against women is invalid, and by doing this leads itself to discrimination against women.

A very relevant example of this is found at the root of much of the issue of sexual abuse. The fact is that both feminism and traditional patriarchal values view women as the traditional victims of sexual abuse. Statistics support this. The problem with this view is not only that its cause doesn't suit feminism, but also that its results have adverse effects as well.

Sex is by its nature heterosexual. That's where it comes from. Homosexuality is great, especially since there's no kids, and I have absolutely no problem with it. And it's, by general consensus of the world's respectable psychological community, natural. But sexuality didn't start off gay, and it's still usually pretty heterosexual.

Because of this, sex is very vulnerable to the harm sexism causes. The intense emotion involved in sexuality is not only the reason that sexual abuse is as horrible as it is, but also the reason that it magnifies problems with sexism.

The traditional, common view of typical sexual abuse is that males victimize females. This is the view, again, of two thoroughly opposed camps; again, feminism and patriarchy. However, patriarchy bases its opposition to this type of sexual behaviour on its perceived innocence of women. Sexual abuse, and indeed sex at large, is considered wrong because it is a violation of the perfected ideal of female sexuality. In this context, female sexuality is something largely devoid of humanity, reality, or sexuality, but is nevertheless considered pure and of high moral value. Of course, this attitude is incredibly sexist - and damaging to women. Aside from the damage "victim" status causes, which I'll get to in a bit, it is a contortion of the beautiful, natural, and as a heterosexual male, thoroughly enjoyable sexuality of women. The patriarchal control of female sexuality makes attacks on it taboo, and though this can be seen as valuable in itself, the fact that it is based on repression presents a problem.

Of possibly far more interesting note however, and far more relevant to this article, a discussion of feminism, is the attitudes, and effects of these attitudes, of mainstream feminism on sexual abuse.

Primarily, feminism is opposed to sexual abuse on the grounds that it is yet another expression of male dominance. I've discussed the causes and effects of this concept, so I won't go through it too thoroughly again. This piece is already to complicated, long, and often repetitive. Sex, powerful as it is, is a very strong and violent tool for oppression, and given that sexuality and sexism are very intrinsically linked, this method of oppression is of particular interest to feminism. The fact that its two oppositions to sexual abuse are not only contradictory but themselves invalid, is, then, a problem.

The other feminist objection, stated or unstated, is of course similar to, and I'd say based in, the same objections that are that of patriarchal, tradtional values (I'll call it PTV). Of course, feminism can't be opposed to female sexuality, though it often is. Sexual abuse against women and girls isn't seen by feminism so much as a violation of some sacred female ideal, but more a victimization. However, the concepts of weakness and powerlessness shared by two supposedly opposite ideologies' views of sexual abuse are quite similar.

Both of these viewpoints set up a very specific "victim" status for, well, victims, of sexual abuse. Which is of course logical, but the problem is the nature of these "victim" statuses, and the similarities between them. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of them is how quickly they stretch that victim status from violent, overt rape, to sex within a generally coercive and inequal environment, to sex in general. This is obvious and well-known with PTV, but far less obvious with feminism, which supposedly empowers women and values their natural sexuality. Of course though, as I'm a little weary of having to say, feminism is frought with hypocrisy.

The fact that feminism is sexist against men is fairly well-known, and that this makes hetero sex tricky for feminists is fairly well-known, but the easy inference from this, that feminism is self-defeating for heterosexual females, is less often made. Frankly speaking, women are usually straight, and since sexuality is a massive part of human identity, sexism against men is damaging for most women. But as I've stated above, sexism against men naturally follows from the assumption that men have oppressed women. What this leads to, by declaring women "victims", in an attempt to better their situation or otherwise, is damage to women.

Of course, the last few paragraphs have only applied my general thesis (feminism is sexist against men and women, for interrelated reasons) to the specific case of sexuality. The point I had to make, however, was that the far more obvious role of women as "victim" in cases of sexual assault is damaging to them here as it is in feminism at large. Acknowledging the harm of any oppression or violence, sexual or otherwise, is very necessary, but assigning "victim" status does much harm itself.

Part of the way I've arrived at this conclusion is through my own identity as a male. Before the 6 feminists that could read through this article without cutting my balls off lose it, yes, being a guy biases me, and no, that shouldn't make a big difference if I use logic and empirical fact (or empirical assumption, I'm way too lazy to research and source everything I say) to arrive at my conclusions. Anyway, the fact is, sexual abuse is bad. PTV, despite many feminist claims, believes this, and feminism certainly does. Moreover, between PTV and feminism lies almost all of human though. Hence, the moral community has done as much as it possibly can, and far more than it usually does, to prevent sexual abuse. It's a horrible thing with several causes, many of which we can eliminate but some we cannot. The fact is, some sexual abuse and violence will remain whatever we do. We can only do more from there by minimizing the damage it does.

And a lot of the damage it does is based on victimization.

Much of the harm associated with sexual abuse, aside from all the obvious violence and repression, is connect far more with the guilt, the " 'ick' factor", if you will. This, of course, applies almost exclusively to females - and young boys, but I'll get to that too. The guilt of course is entirely unfounded, as any feminist will be quicker than quick to say. The trick to this is that the "victim" status which so easily moves to demonize sex of any kind is in a large part responisible for a lot of this guilt. Saying that sex is a bad thing, whether it is or not, contributes to the negative feelings of those hurt by it. PTV of course is, and I shouldn't have to say it but I think I've denied it a little, far more responisble for female sexual guilt than is feminism, but feminism does it as well. And for different reasons, they both slide the negativity of sex from aggressive violation of females and their sexual ideal, to coercive, "grey-area" sex, to thoroughly enjoyable sex. Victimization worsens the negative feelings of sexual abuse, and damages enjoyable, potentially empowering (again a tricky term, as it assumes women are working from a lesser position and in need of empowerment) sex.

[Next couple of paragraphs are edit. It was very late. I was very tired.]

This is where the male perspective comes it. If not validity, the belief that only women and children are subject to sexual abuse must have some cause. There must be a reason that, if this isn't indeed so, it must be seen to be so; only the most psychotic, sexist defenders of Men view men as tragic victims of sexual abuse as well.

The primary difference, it seems, between male and female sexuality, and the difference therefore which would best account for the disparity between male and female sexual abuse, is one largely composed sociologically. Men in large part, personally and as a group, view sex as enjoyable and desirable; though this is also in a certain respect true as well with women, large components of feminism and almost all of PTV counterract this. They both attach their levels of guilt and victimization. They both attach shame and damage to sex, far more than PTV does for men (feminism does very little to affect the attitudes of men, which is a major reason it is ineffective). I've already explained the damage of the "victim" status, but I think it becomes far clearer when the sexual situation of women is contrasted with that of men. The range of behaviour considered to be disallowed sexual deviance has again moved from the overt violence of rape to sexual behaviour many if not most men have trouble seeing the problem with. This is because as a group we haven't come to associate guilt with sex; moreover, overt sexual comments from our female counterparts is often something we'd appreciate. The "do unto others..." line doesn't apply here. This is not because females are weak sexless creatures, nor is because men are sex-crazed, violent things who must stifle their natural urges to avoid damaging the fragile hearts of said sexless creatures.

What I believe must instead be done is to remove female sexual guilt. Of course it doesn't remove the problems of oppression, or the extreme destruction of rape. What it does however do is weaken the effect of a range of sexual behaviour considered abusive. Rape, with less attachment to sexual guilt, though still being violent and damaging, loses much of its emotional control. Sexual harassment of the type experienced in many schools and workplaces actually (the subtler though far mroe common kind) weakens as a tool for oppression, such that in those instances where it intends to control it fails, and those where it is intended as honest sexual behaviour are not criminalized. I don't think they should be. I think there's a line between "unwanted sexual advances" and "unconsented sexual advances". The line between these is blurring, and this has a lot to do, again, with the differences in attitude.

Men are rarely hurt by sexual abuse. In almost all cases it is only while they are young, which is explained below. While older, a significant freedom from sexual guilt couples with confidence and the ability to avoid activities they aren't interested in. And more importantly, to accept responsibility for their own actions. What many men regard in the morning as a fucked up, regrettable decision they've made while drunk, many feminists are coming to see as "date-rape". Yes, sexual coercion is bad. And yes, the world of sexual communication is complicated and there's a HUGE difference between the ambiguous nature of sexual consent and the overt ignorance of sexual consent involved in rape.

I'm not suggesting that women need simply "get over it" and their problems will sublimate. What I'm saying is that the victim status many women possess is damaging sexually, that guilt serves only to hurt and complicate sexual abuse, and that this becomes far clearer when women are contrasted with men. The victim status not only weakens women and makes them more susceptible to sexual harassment and abuse, but makes such harassment and abuse far more damaging.

The counterargument, that a woman taking responsibility for her actions increases guilt, ignores several things. Firstly, a major problem with the sexual guilt enforced by feminism and PTV is that it's irresolvable; because it's based on arbitrary, external factors, it's long lasting and difficult or impossible to get past. Secondly, men have far less sexual guilt, and it seems obvious that this is a major reason they are less damaged by sexual abuse.

SO TO SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING: Feminism, because it fights masculine control as a singular yet massive entity, creates for itself an opponent (which again, is fairly valid; patriarchal control is obvious, and even empirical if we assume that such a thing as "social science" can exist). This conflict creates sexism against both men and women, from a set of political beliefs almost always sincerely intended to provide equality. The sexism against men damages the cause of feminism, and damages men who sincerely respect women and accept feminism's points. The sexism against women damages feminism further, not only by rendering it hypocritical, but by causing much of the damage it attempts to undo.

As I also got into, sex itself is a bit of a special case. Factoring as it does as both a cause of sexism, and as something majorly affected by sexism, it is of interesting note, and it is relevant to separate it from other issues of sexist oppression. I also did this to get into a similar issue, which if possible is even more controversial. So here I go.

Child sexuality is, in many ways, the supreme taboo in our society. The worst of the worst. Of course, humans are mammals, and though puberty brings with it increases in hormones and sexual dimorphism, human children are given a special, asexual status among every other organism on earth. I really shouldn't have to state that there are very real components of the power dynamics and relationships between adults and children which makes sexual relationships between them repulsive independent of the effects of moral taboo, but this does not at all say that children do not possess any measure of sexuality.

It is also very true that similar power imbalances, though typically on a far lesser scale than those of adult-child sexual relationships, are present, and damaging, in society-tolerated sexual relationships. The fact that women are sometimes involved in sexual relationships either in spite of or because of severe, damaging power imbalances does not mean that they do not have their own legitimate sexuality which deserves healthy expression. These relationships are problematic and should be strongly avoided by any society which values its members, but assigning a "victim" status to people already being damaged is problematic and should also be avoided. This stigmatization contributes to feelings of guilt and revulsion experienced by victims of sexual abuse.

The case of children does indeed have its differences. Primary among them is that the difference in power between adults and children is almost always unavoidable. And though I very much hate to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, especially since I have a strong belief that pedophilia is more common among "straights", they nevertheless are both opposed on the grounds of their unnaturalness, despite the fact that both of them are very difficult to live with and would not be chosen sexual preferences, supposing such a thing exists, lightly. The crucial difference, I believe, is that homosexuality can compartively find healthy expression extremely easily, while this is virtually impossible for pedophiles.

But I'm digressing from my intended point, and spending far too much time worrying that logic will brand me a pedophile. The irony is that my actual point is that the absolute disgust associated with pedophilia makes it not only a harder problem to study and solve, but also places more harm on its victims.

And all of that is way far aside from the whole feminism thing, but it is connected and it is relevant.

So that's my bit of bloggage for this morning. 8:38 according to my computer clock, so three hours or so of writing. Seeing as how it's been a couple months since last I wrote, I'm not sure when again I'll get back to this, but it should be soon. The world's a pretty fucked up place, with the best of political causes doing a lot of self harm. The best, and probably only, way we're going to solve our problems is for us to all do our bit as individuals.

With feminism, that doesn't mean "empowering" women, especially when that involves rhetoric and the creation of new feminine ideals. Women and girls, on their own, need to empower themselves as individuals, not as women but as individuals. Men need to recognize that women and men are as inherently valuable as each other; i.e. meh, I'm hesitant to say a lot, but neither is less than the other because of sex. But the many, many interesting, powerful women, and men, deserve great respect, not because they're powerful interesting women or men, but because they're respectable people.

When the cause is environmentalism, as another example, blowing shit up is fun, but counterproductive; if you're perceived as an opponent, you'll receive opposition. Better to do the best you can yourself, and convince others to do the same.

But the most important thing is to have fun. Enjoy life as much as you possibly can, of course in such a way that doesn't prevent others from doing the same. And certainly don't feel guilty about it.

The Arbitrarily Important Date Spectacular

So I haven't posted in fucking forever. The world's still fucked, I've just been too lazy/depressed about it to want to write about it, plus I've written everything worth talking about to Jackie. It's a little weird to be posting before midnight, but the whole 6-6-6 thing isn't really something I wanna miss. I figure I'll be less able to be evil next time this comes around, and I figure speaking my mind's just about the evilest thing I'll typically get done in my life time. So here we go.

So what's fucked up... reason is still proving a pretty ineffective arguing tool. People are incredibly stupid, it took a lot of convincing to get people to realize that there'll be another 06-06-06 in 100 years, and there was one last century, etc. Apparently basic math skills aren't exactly popular. In other "you fail at basic math" news, apparently a study of American college students showed that most believe there are more Jews than Muslims. Apparently 15-20 million is more than 800 million-1 billion.

Fuck, I have an hour to offend intelligently. Plus I'll have to take a break for soup.

People in general are just a major, major failure as a species on so, so many levels, with violently, disgustingly few exceptions. I was looking through my geography textbook (bound to be a pretty appalling piece) and among other atrocities, I found the world divided into "levels of development": "Developed; Newly Industrializing; Developing[sic]; Communist and former communist countries". Now let's see what I have to bitch about here. Firstly, there's the assertion that industrialization is good, when it's based on cheap oil, and we're running out of cheap oil (hence, we will have a problem, because we will need something we won't have). That aside, it listed SAUDI FUCKING ARABIA as a "developed" country. Around the same time my mother was reading about their state-sponsored indoctrination I saw this, it wasn't good timing. See, most countries not openly at war with the real world don't explicitly state in school things like "Islam is the only religion and all other religions are false" and "You're the brother of every Muslim, but even your real brothers that aren't Muslims aren't really your brothers". What the fuck was that about the "universal golden rule"? Sounds more to me like "do unto others that think like you as you would have it done unto them to keep free thought stifled". I don't have any problem with Islam specifically, or even Saudi Arabia (Israel bugs me too, although it's a LOT less fucked up). I just have a problem with organized religion in general (duh) and Islam seems to take it to extremes. Anyway, that aside, Saudia Arabia also:

• retains stoning as an execution method
• kills gays
• cuts off people's appendages
• hates women
• is responsible for more than 3/4 of the 9/11 hijackers (yes, they're overstated, yes, the U.S. should've at least expected it, yes, it was horrible, yes, it was a big deal)
• is a fucking MONARCHY who until very recently had the Qur'an listed as its constitution
• is a strong ally of the United States (great fucking pile of democracy there)

Seriously, who the fuck is a monarchy anymore? And what the fuck else are we going to let the U.S. get away with? That's why it's so fucking difficult to blog anymore, the world is so fucked. Besides the whole Saudi Arabia as a developed country, it had Thailand, but I figured I could discount any country renowned for teenage hookers. So that left Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, and I figured Singapore was too small to count and Japan's basically secular. So that left South Korea, which I didn't really want to count either, and all the other "Developed" countries are Christian. Again, monotheism, and specifically Christianity, are good for capitalism. (Capitalism is pretty fucked too, but I'll get to that in a sec). As for the "Developing" label, most of these countries aren't "developing"; no, the countries labelled "newly industrializing" are developing, the other ones, mainly in Africa, are better described with another word: "Fucked". Because that's what these are. Sorry, Sudan and Sierra Leone and Ethiopia aren't developing; theys is fucked.

And then there was the thing about "Communist and Former Communist". Now, I have and will again talk about my thoughts on communism (just below, in fact) but that isn't the issue. The issue was that Russia's re-developing, China's fucking scary, and the other countries are really kinda in varying stages of fucked. And none of them are or were communist. Cuba KINDA is, but with a few disappointing exceptions, its "communism" has done a hell of a lot of good for a lot of its people. Like having ten casualities from Hurricane Katrina, the storm was weaker then but it's a tiny island country. Communism is about not leaving people behind to be assfucked by storms and CEOs. Cuba's got a hell of a lot of problems, mostly political, but it's got a hell of a lot of good points.

But about communism and capitalism; the fundamental principle of capitalism is disgusting in itself, while the fundamental principle of communism is basically "share". Which strikes at least a few as a little childish, but see the trick is... we all live on the same planet. So we kinda, uh, HAVE to share. Capitalism works perfectly if we all live in alternate universes. Which is arguable philosophically, but with all evidence given we have to assume that our actions have influence on others, and to account for this, communism is just about the most sensible economic system. People aren't good enough for it, but that doesn't mean it's not our only option. Capitalism assumes that profit should be made where it can be made; if the revenue from selling baby flesh was greater than the cost of production, lawsuits, loss of sales to sane people, etc., I'm sure it would be considered a brilliant business decision to sell it. This is the whole idea of capitalism, that if you're a horrible enough person to make a profit than you deserve to. Which of course because of the nature of free market competition leaves others unable to make a profit, which is the true problem with capitalism, hailing back to an article awhile ago. This'll eventually fuck us though (oil), because we have limited resources(oil). And too many fucking poeple. And about competition (sorry I'm disorganized, I'm rushing to finish before midnight), there was a video in geography class about horrible working conditions in China and such. China fucked as it is aside, there was a bit about a kid whose hand was badly injured in a machine, and when he got to a doctor and the doctor asked the employer whether he wanted the hand saved or amputated, the employer elected for the amputation ("Whichever is cheaper"). Someone asked after if he couldn't have sued, to which I flatly replied "No." Firstly, he couldn't afford a lawyer, secondly, someone with those kind of working conditions wouldn't be in a place politically to sue an employer, thirdly, he'd be too scared to. The world is so fucked. And because this sort of labour is cheaper, and because capitalism is all about finding the cheapest way to do things, it's very directly inferred from the theory that this is what makes people deserve profit; if you can't do it this cheaply, people get to buy from people that can. No, "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to a civilization with GPS. Except in the sense that a society such a failure isn't fit enough to survive.

What else to bitch about... people in general are unoriginal, ignorant, and uninteresting, and are of course unaware of any of it. And there's too fucking many of them, and too fucking many of them believe in the Churches that say we need more people. For fuck sakes, there aren't enough resources on the planet to support a now-reasonable standard of living for everyone. We can either abolish microchips or STOP HAVING SO FUCKING MANY KIDS. I pick the fucking second one. Most people shouldn't be parents anyway, and besides, it's easier to decided to have more kids ("Fuck without a rubber? Well if you're going to talk me into it...") than it is to reinvent the microchip. BLAHHHHH.

A girl in my French class said today that Ghandi was going to hell because he wasn't born again. Actually said this quite audibly to no one in particular (me).

So I guess I'm evil. But there's still a chance to enjoy the tiny leftover of this fucked up rock before the world ends. And at least there's still a couple wonderful, beautiful, intelligent people. The world's entirely fucked, but I'd say there's still hope for at least some of us. I'll certainly try for it. I should blog more often. Until then, enjoy, resist, love, fuck, think, and most importantly, be evil.

This place makes me fucking sick.

This'll probably be little more than a quick note. (Rant. And maybe quick. [hour later edit - never mind][6 hours after finishing edit - I cleaned the wording a little, to clear up a typo or two and a contradiction or two, but don't think I really changed the point. It's still sort of a tricky article, mostly because it's a complex thought I've had])


Main page I'm discussing: here.

Somehow in my journeys through this vast shitscape of digital information, I stumbled on the news, to me at least, that the US opposes the International Criminal Court on the grounds that it doesn't provide exemptions for american soldiers. And my first thought, the thought in the brief period after taking the guess that the information isn't a fucking lie, that the source is at least reasonably dependable, but the thought before the real sting of disgust, fear, etc., was, as seems appropriate: "What the fuck is that?"

And then "How the fuck is that allowed to be said, never mind happen?"

And then "What the fuck is wrong with these people?"

And then "What the fuck is wrong with everyone that people like this are able to not only think like this, but actually make up some of the most, if not the most powerful people in the world?"

(Slightly, probably just down the page) further research led me to the knowledge that Israel opposes it on the grounds that "[it] objected to the Rome Statute [this has to do with defining the jurisdiction of the ICC, I believe, wiki it if you're curious] because of the clause defining 'the war crime of the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory', which it feared implied that settlement activity in the occupied territories is a 'war crime' and 'grave offense'." In other words, mine, incidentally, Israel objects to the ICC on the grounds that it just might prevent it from committing war crimes. What the fuck is that?

Now the world has begun to accept the knowledge that the US, and (as those more concerned about global peace for Arabs and Jews, as well as for everyone else, and less afraid of often basically baseless charges of anti-Semitism (footnote without the superscript), are willing to say) Israel, commit war crimes. That's obviously a horrible thing, a thing that if I was willing to accept I wouldn't be writing this article, but apparently it's not enough to have citizens and even members of your government that actually do this. They're actually saying that they don't want an international body to deal with the issue of (I was going to say prevent, but it wouldn't really work) war crimes, because it, uh, might interfere with their commiting war crimes. The freedoms of those such as Iraqis and Palestinians, to, uh, live, is apparently supposed to be viewed, by two of what I find to be my society's most harshly defended democracies, as at most secondary to the right of said countries to remove this right. What the fuck.

Which brings me to a point that's been circulating in my head for awhile. It's sort of circular, but at the same time people don't seem to notice the point it makes.

Law & order typically serves aristocracy, when it's governed by the aristocracy. The French Revolution provided an excellent example of the reverse of this. The laws created by the few, or even less stringent patterns by which society is governed, are defined by those in power, obviously. This is just basic, if you don't understand as much as that then you aren't reading my blog. What doesn't seem to occur to people is that in our great and hailed "democracies", where supposedly the people rule themselves, this is still true. There are no large direct democracies, someone is in charge in every country where there is charge to be in. But anyway, people are pathetic, fearful things, and so they like having power. Power and stability. And so logically, those in power would want to keep it. And logically, as well, those in power, given their, uh, power, would be in a good place to work to keep that. The thing is though, there was a point at which power was far less strictly defined, it was just whomever happened to have the bigger rock, and then the greater number of buddies with rocks, and then the better command of your less-than-buddies with swords during a siege or a battle in an open field or whatever. But now we're sort of at a point where power is defined legally, but of course, the people making these laws are those making every other law. And hence, those with power have far less need to defend such power.

If people were something other than numbed, ignorant fools, there are two reasons why this would be much less an issue. Firstly, even within the law, we are technically a democracy, and it is legally possible to elect intelligent, interesting, caring, selfless people to prevent some from interfering with the rights of others, to genuinely represent the beliefs of the people. The problem, however, is that it isn't humanly possible, and people as a massive collective are selfish and stupid. Even the few people who fit my above description of acceptable (a bare minimum.) politicans (I mean few. I expect that I've met most of them in this city, and they'd probably all fit in my house, if not my bedroom. And I've got a small bedroom.) wouldn't be supported by the rest. Secondly, this illusion of self-rule, however based in genuine law, is far too respected. Its flaws go unchallenged, because people genuinely believe that they're in control of their own lives and government. People respect the laws, the establishment, the world created by those in power, they don't challenge or question. Democracy makes it extraordinarly easy for aristocracy to flourish, because those few who would challenge a monarchy, even without threat of pain (below), are sedated by the serum which is "self-rule".

Anyway, aside from the appalling lack of will to create honest, selfless, beneficial government from those few people who are legally and physically able to do so, there's still the problem that that isn't entirely common. Or that even when it is present, the fact of people doing nothing prevents it from mattering.

Here's the simple fact. Greed pays. Basic logic. If you're more willing to have than another is, you'll probably get, and in this world of limited resources, leave them without. If you're both willing, but you less attached to morals than they, and more willing to use force, then you can get it. Cheating makes the game easier to win, obviously, but we have a planet which can't accomodate for infinite need. So if there's any winners, there's losers. I can't say that this will be completely prevented, but when a person wants indefinitely in a world where there is less than everything to be had, some will go without, supposing that they have access to resources, be they gems or oil or a fucking glass of water. But since everybody wants, those that want more can get it if they're of a lower, more disgusting breed and willing to do what's necessary to obtain.

Anyway, we're at a point in not only our mental and physical development, but social development, where the oft-toted "survival of the fittest" is not a necessary rule for human society. We can work together, we can collaborate to provide for everyone's needs, well, if men are a little more careful with spraying their fuck juice and women a little more willing to disallow it, and we can even serve many, many of our wants. But there are people who not only want more than they could even physically possibly have, they have not only some sick sense of entitlement, granted likely by the faith granted them by democracy (I knew there was a point to that paragraph), but they have the physical ability to work to get it. It is possible to play by the rules, for everyone to agree on the rights of others, but as soon as somebody starts cheating, the others can't win playing by the rules. Which is a pain in the ass when your friend's little brother decides to steal your monopoly money, but we're talking about food here. It doesn't work. Everyone plays by the rules or pretty well no one does, as soon as there's someone willing to push the limits of our resources, it'll pull at everyone else.

So we have an upper class (and to a lesser extent, with a broader body of less want, the Western "middle class", which is in some ways parallel) with disgusting, pointless, endless want. Our society, its ideas and its rules, have granted them the support of many, of the law, and of our militaries, who seem to predominately powered by countries originally based on a religion supposedly based on a supposed communist pacifist. And these militaries, and all the other bodies controlled by our aristocracy, enforce the rule breaking which causes everyone else to either cheat or lose. What I find really ironic is that the justification of military to the masses is this very principle, that if people are kind then opportunism will arise. But militarism is in most cases is state-instigated, and fuck, even when it isn't, half the time there's benefit to be had, if not from the militarization, at least the movement it's based on.

MAJOR POINT: This world is like a game, where the prize is existence. We are at a point where the only threats to our survival, ourselves, are capable of following our own rules, and working in their lives for not only themselves but for everyone else. However, this is a world of limited resources, obviously, where if people stretch out from these rules to grab more for themselves, others won't have enough. The fact that this can happen, and unfortunately does, is bad enough, but this is committed by some of the very countries which claim to support those who don't have. And not only this, but now that people have finally stepped up and acknowledged that without one unifying, truly democratic body, the most powerful person or class or even country will come, send their military into the world, and keep the power they possess, working ever greedily to obtain more. (An important point here is one born of the universe's love of contradictions. I actually had to come back and edit to make at least a little clearer the distinction between fair, truly democratic international law, and the law and order created by those in power to defend their position.) But the thing is, the most powerful countries in the world have basically just said "Fuck that," because laws that interfere with their stealing and lying and killing and generally interfere with their cheating at the game of life sort of, you know, interfere with their stealing and lying and killing and cheating. China and the US have both done this, both saying "Fuck human rights, fuck diplomacy, fuck demilitarization, I like what I have".

And because they're not only powerful enough to do so, but, and this is the primary problem, are willing to do so, the rest of us can't stop us. But for fuck sakes, even if you don't have a legal vote, which anyone reading this will likely have, if you disagree, fucking disagree. Laws are social contract, fighting Ug's bigger rock may be impossible, but fighting America's military means not fighting. Of course we can't do it alone. I'm assuming that enough people are willing to care about others enough to let them live. But if enough are not, and honestly, I don't know if I believe they are, then we're completely fucked.

So please. If you believe in the human species, please, fight militarization, the concentration of power and wealth, fight the US and its bullshit idea that its soldiers should be exempt from international law, because the fucking point of United Nations international law is that there are no soldiers which are exempt, that everyone has to play by the rules. That way everybody at very least doesn't die from bullets or shrapnel or simply fear, and probably gets enough to eat, gets enough to drink, gets enough medicine not to simply have the world take them dead before they learn to read, which it isn't a stretch to believe everyone can have the opportunity to do. Please, we can do it together, I have to believe, but we have to actually do it.

But really, come to think of it, one of the only countries in the world allowed by the UN to possess nuclear weapons is also, unless I'm very much mistaken, the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon in combat, and this is before the UN existed. Seriously the only country in the world to prove itself thoroughly fucked enough to nuke another one is allowed to retain that possiblity, and this is under international law. When even the UN, which is perhaps the greatest hope the world has, allows something like this, there's a serious problem. The fact the US believes that the UN is a threat to its sovereignty, which given its attitude, it is, but the fact that it fights this is just fucking appalling. I like to end on an up note. Tonight, I can't. Later - I find something positive to write about. I hope. And a little more organized.

Jew note. It disturbs me that one can't criticize Israel without being considered anti-Semitic. Israel's foreign policy is a political issue, not a religious issue. I've known personally one Jewish person I can think of right now. And honestly, he was a little weird. But his mom, who was a teacher at our school, was quite nice, quite intelligent, and I have no problems whatsoever in general with Jewish people, I have far less problems with Jews than Christians if only because I've met less of them. However, even rejecting the right to criticize religion, which I think should absolutely be allowed, disagreeing with hurting Palestinians should not be considered to amount do disagreeing with the right of Jews or whomever else to live in peace. Honestly though, as much as bringing harm to anyone on the basis of absolutely any belief is one of the greatest wrongs in our society, I think of anti-Semitism itself, not the practice but the belief, as something stupid and pointless before I think of it as something "evil". So much as I am in every way not a theist, nevermind a monotheist, and would likely find much, much more to disagree with in the teachings of Judaism, the fact of the matter is, Jews in general, not the fundamentalist Israel-is-right-and-Palestine-is-evil Jews but just the ones to whom I've been exposed, seem typically on the positive side of the human spectrum. Religion is kind of dumb, but Jewish people in general seem, if nothing else at all in the context of our world as a whole, pretty great. Fuck, am I afraid of being called anti-Semitic. And there's more re-reading of this shit I write as I write it than after it's posted. However, everything in this blog, to the best of my knowledge, is true.

Anyway, I have an exam in less than seven hours. And I'm fucking tired. I'm going to bed, goodnight everyone.