Archive for September, 2016

Race and Genetics are less important than Culture and Values for National Identity

15. September 2016

Let me posit to you an extreme thought experiment. If all the women in Britain were to become infertile and if a massive adoption of babies from other parts of the world were to occur and eventually the entire population of Britain were to be replaced by people with different genes and races but with values and culture and mannerism identical to those of British people before the mass infertility, then would Britain still be British?

Next imagine this – one day suddenly all of the values and culture of the British people were to be replaced by those of ancient Japan but the people who live in Britain would still remain racially identical to what they were the day before this sudden change, then would Britain remain British?

The answer to the first of these propositions is yes and the answer to the second proposition is no. What makes Britain Britain is the British people and what makes the British people British is their values and culture. The culture chages to varying degrees from area to area all over England, Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland but the value placed in Liberty is common to all of Britain. The race and genetics are just the superficial appearance of the people in Britain that cannot carry the depth and weight of any individual or people, British or not.

I don’t like the fact that ethnically British people are having less children and how their percentage of the population is decreasing. I like the way that white British people look. Therefore it would be a shame for their kind of appearance to become rarer than it already is.  I also believe that no ethnic or racial group should be eliminated or erased from this world. Some drastic steps ought to be taken to increase the birth rates of natives in the developed world to reasonable levels for both economic and culutual and reasons.

The ‘aestethics’ of society are valuable but they are less important to the actual values that people hold. Actually given the advances in genetic engineering and cosmetics, I wouldn’t be too surprised if in around a century preserving a kind of appearance may not be entirely dependent on raw population numbers but more on  trends. Therefore what we need to put values first, then culture and finally appearance.

This post is a response to the youtube discussion on the Kraut Streams youtube channel which is linked here. One of the people on this stream said that the chinese regime is illiberal beceause of the genes of the Chinese people,  if that were the case then how do you explain the protests in Hong Kong, how do you explain Tianemeen Square? Not to mention that this just shifts the blame away from the Chinese regime to the supposed inherent submissiveness of the Chinese people. What about the dictatorships of Europe in Spain, Greece, Italy and Germany and elsewhere, how do you explain those if liberalism is suppposedly in the genes of Europeans. The reason that most of Europe is liberal is because it has chosen to be free through the hardwork of many individuals and it would be an insult to them to suggest that Europe is free because of the genetic makeup of the European people.

Politics and The Internet: Hyperboles are Dishonest and Deceptive Metaphors

11. September 2016

There is a tendency to make the most extreme comparisons and to take the most extreme positions on all issues for the sake of appearing different, for attention, for profit, for effect and for a sense of community. This is dishonest but for the most inconsequential, fun and amusing to watch even when you are not part of it. It is a catharthic exercise  to relieve stress but like catarthic activity at some point it becomes hard to say which feelings are contrived and which views are real. I think there is a need to be more straightforward in times likes these.

Sometimes I felt no conviction in my writing and no honesty in my hatred when I was part of the internet atheist and skeptic community. It all felt so rehersed and exagerrated.  It felt like our enemies were scare crows propped up to instill hatred to create a sense of community, to forge tribalism. I believe the same has happened to those on the other side of the argument. It’s the same everwhere- the fans and the haters – I was going to say “going at each others throats” but that would have been an hyperbole or perhaps  just an overused metaphor. It’s a waste of everyone’s time. It is a form of speicialized virtue signaling that caters to online communities. But ultimately only provides a temporary fix for a sense of belonging by binding it to a trend on the internet.

I do not intent to overstate the significance of the interenet on pollitics in a post about hyperboles on the internet. The way that humans act on the internet and in real life is different, at least in the non-autistic part of humanity. However the anonymity of the interenet allows individuals to forge a new identity for themselves and the affiliations that go with it. So long as somebody remains anonymous the internet will judge on their opinions and this can be both an inhibiting and facilitating factor to honesty in discourse. For instance I consider myself part of the anime community, I have certain opinions about Japanese animations but how many of them are my own and how many of them have I gradually shifted inorder to fit into the anime community or better put to feel part of the anime community. Everything from the kind of words I use (whether it is broken Japanese or standard English) to the opinions I have is significantly affected (I was going to say “dependent on” but that would have been an hyperbole) on my affiliation to the community. This isn’t to say that we must keep away from all communities and therefore all external opinions but only that we should always strive to maintain an indipendent mind. The best we can do is be conscious about the words we use and whether we actually mean them and to forgo if other people in the “community” will think of them.

I think the exeption to my criticisms is satire, like Spitting Image and Yes, Minister.  Satire can never go too far though it should strive to. I just used two British examples because they are very good but also because it makes me feel  British. Is there something wrong with that? No, as long as I acually think that they are two of the best examples I have got then it  isn’t wrong.

But then what about people understating things, using very bad metaphors also known as euphemisms, for apologia- well that isn’t as prevalent in the internet as hyperboles though it certainly not absent, is a topic for another post and for another night. I need to go to sleep. Good night. Now let’s look for an image for this post. Ah that looks just right.

The Nature of the European Union

6. September 2016

Many have accused the European Union of attempting to create a Eurpean Superstate which would absorb all national identities of the European nations. I don’t think this is necessarily wrong but I believe that the EU’s main goal has effectively being to eliminate politics out of public and social European life. The EU tried to tinker with the economy not always behind closed doors but certainly always away from the public eye. I don’t think this is possible and I don’t know if it would be desirable if it could be done. Until the EU economic crisis and the migrant and refugee crisis the EU was generally successful in convincing the politically active population that the EU was right and sensible and always working in the interest of all European people and also in not elicing any interest in the politically inactive majority. The EU had manged to this through salami tactics, never bitintg off more than it could chew and by trying to micromanage the Economies of Europe through legislation about goods and services that the majority would not bother to look into. The ignorance about the EU that the EU hasn’t been fostering but has certainly done nothing about is now coming back to haunt over Europe.

The EU’s strenght is it’s ability to resist populism but it is also it’s greatest weakness. How is it a strenght? Well, this means they could carry out long term projects unhindered by the fickleness of public opinion. The EU is not responsive enough to what the majority of the European population wants to do because the EU and mainstream European politicians think  they know better than their populations, and this doesn’t mean that they always don’t know better  than their populations or that they  always do. The Shengen area and the single market currency are the greatest liabilities to the EU. The Shengen area should be officially temporarilly suspended in countries affected by the migrant and refugee crisis, many of these countries have already unofficially suspended the Shengen area but that’s not good enough, the people of these nations need to know that the EU is on their side too otherwise the national governments will easily be able to blame the entire crisis on the EU – to a certain extent their right that the EU wasn’t ready nor decisive in dealing with this crisis but that’s the EU’s nature the national governments should have done much more to bring the crisis under control- such as keeping a proper record of who comes in from where and properly screening everyone outside of the mainland – but that is not what this article is about. The single market currency is a hindrance to national sovereignity but I am not an economic expert so I won’t comment on the economic impliacations of getting rid of it at this stage but frankly let me just say that given the state of world economy I wouldn’t advocate something as reckless as getting rid of the Euro.

My next point has been discussed in more detail elsewhere but I think it is important to mention it at least briefly. The membership saturation point of the EU has been reached so “perhaps” it is better for the UK (a supranational organization more succesful than the EU because of its smaller member count) and the EU to part ways.  If the EU ever wants to expand anymore then it should wait until brighter economic times.


Why the Burqini should be legal

4. September 2016

People should be as free as they can be in a liberal society. There is no security risk coming from the burkini and the only thing the ban will serve is to further prevent the assimilation of muslims into western society. I can understand how burqas and niqabs can be security risks because it is very hard to identify someone without seeing their face but this is not the case with the burqini.


I believe in the separation of state and church, and more importantly in religious freedom. People should be free to practice their fate and the state shouldn’t get in their way unless they are doing something illegal.

At best these kind of bans are just a type of virtue signalling by politicians to divert the publics attention from the underlying problems. By baning this kind of clothing muslims will become less visible in western societies while none of the underlining issues such as the failed immigration policy in western Europe will be dealt with, politicians will just keep on kicking the tin until another Islamic terrorist attack happens.

Yes, I know that in many muslim countries women are treated as second class citizens, that Islamic clothing  has got less to do with modesty and everything to do with women’s status in muslim communities and that it’s presense in the west is a political statement spitting on the values of Christian and secular Western society. I have seen many people try to justify these type of illiberal bans by pointing out correctly that women are forced to wear Islamic clothing in Islamic countries. The problem with this assessment is that just because authoritarian Islamic societies do something wrong by coercing women to wear certain clothing that doesn’t mean that we should fall down to their level by coercing women to wear a different kind of clothing.

And no the pressure that women feel to wear certain clothing and look a certain way in the west is not the same as the state sponsored oppression of women in authoritarian societies with draconian laws on women’s lifestyles which have no parallel in free societies. Shame on anyone who tries to equivocate the two, because by doing so they are excusing the disgusting behaviour towards women in authoritarian Islamic societies.

I find Islamic clothing aesthetically and morally disgusting and I am sad to see their spread in the West, however the liberal principles that are the foundation of the Liberty we all enjoy in the west need to be protected because as long as they are present I believe there is a chance of assimilating the muslim communities in the west by showing them how our values are better. Before dismissing what I have just said as bone headed optimism remember that we all capable of rational thought.