Re: ‘What’s wrong with ‘Libertarianism’?’ by Peter Hitchens, and some thoughts on the Manchester attack

2. June 2017

Karl Marx

“No man fights freedom; he fights at most the freedom of others.” – Karl Marx

Peter Hitchens, columnist for the Mail on Sunday criticizes liberty and equality on the basis that they are merely inadequate substitutes to Christianity.

“It is obvious to the slowest thinker that (as Karl Marx pointed out) the freedom of all is impossible, as it will lead to conflicts between groups who wish to be free to do something which tramples on the freedom of another.  ‘No man fights freedom’, wrote the sage of Trier,  ’He fights at most the freedom of others’.” writes Mr. Hitchens.

Though it is true that the markets have caused damage to people’s lives I believe that today we live in a much more economically stable society in Britain thanks to those sacricifes. As for Marx’s point, it is only true for the ‘freedom’ of groups/collectives over other groups/collectives but Libertarians argue for the freedom of individuals over that of groups/collectives.

Peter Hitchens claims that the values of equality and libery  “lack the universal power over all humanity(my emphasis) of the Sermon on the Mount and the Commandments, and that they are based on a desire for power, rather than on Christianity’s preference for love, and its central suspicion of power and the mob, as so graphically set out in the story of the Passion.”

First of all I would like to point out that Mr. Hitchens’ appeal to the ‘universal power’ of Christianity is nothing more than an appeal to consensus, to a consensus that is now gone and a mob is a group of people with a consensus. I doubt that Mr. Hitchens realizes this but his appeal to a consensus which is now gone just means that he is just dissatisfied that the mob is not his mob anymore. And secondly that desire for liberty and equality are based on a desire for power over oneself, whereas ‘Christianity’s preference for love’ nearly always in effect involves giving oneself to others with more power here on earth (usually some self-appointed moral arbitrers), speaking of which, Christinaty’s ‘suspiction of power’, is very dubious given the historical role that the clergy has played when Christianity had ‘universal power.’ Mr. Hitchens may have his own interpretation of ‘the story of the Passion’ but scripture does not supercede history. Sometimes I think a little light mockery is the best way to make people think. After all, one day they may realise that it is possible they are mistaken.

The youtuber called TheBritisher made a video called “In conclusion: About the Manchester attack  in which he argues that the freedom of the non-muslim British people might be prioritized over that of the Muslim people in Britain because the muslims are a security risk. In effect he suggests that (only) muslim faith schools must be closed and immigration from Islamic countries should be blocked. This is an instance of what Marx pointed out playing out in action. I don’t think that it is possible to do things always purely out of principle, the world is more complex than it appears on paper, however is that an excuse not to adhere to one’s principles in the name of ‘pragmatism’ and ‘realism’? When one looks far enough this realism is only concerned with the short term, Morality is or should be long term reason (if not it will become irrelevant and/or simply retard progress).

‘Progress’ is another interesting word, I have heard some relativists/post-modernists/(or whatever they are called) say that there is no such thing as progress, but if that is the case doesn’t that mean that in effect the only difference between ‘reaction’ and ‘progress’ is that they are opposed to each other? Of course this consequence does not mean that there is such a thing as progress.  I believe that there is progress on an individual level and a society in which people are free and equal, a delicate balance tilted towards free, to achieve whatever personal progress(i.e. socially acceptable ambition) is a step towards ‘progress’ in society. I still see why people would not like the word though, I don’t like it either, it just sounds like something exaggerated that could mean anything vaguely good that those who use it want it to mean, and in the hands of the wrong people in power it could be nothing more than a dull word in some communist/nationalist propaganda. I much prefer the word ‘ambition’, it sounds a lot more personal and real.

Back to Europe many people have died in various terrorist attacks, TheBritisher argues that the Muslim populations deserve to forfeit some of their liberty for the safety of society. Personally I believe that if the police paid more attention to the incitements to violence in mosques and faith schools that would suffice. There is such a thing as national interest, Peter Hitchens once (actually more than once) said that the nation-state is “the largest unit in which it is possible to effectively unselfish”, ofcourse ‘effectively unselfish’ is not the same as ‘selfless’ so that’s a good choice of words, he goes onto say that ‘loyalty to it permits sacrifice and generosity on a large scale, and is the foundation of tolerance.’ The ‘generocity on a large scale’ in most cases is taxation but in some cases it is more but that doesn’t say a damned thing about the rest of us, the ‘tolerance’ the nation provides is the narrow window that provides all the liberty and equality and therefore individual ambition, if that window is closed even a little you will find that people will become a lot less ‘generous’ very quickly.


Peter Hitchens’ article on Libertearianism: Link

Marxist philosophy as I see it, in a nutshell.

1. June 2017

Marxism is an ideology, a system of ideas, with a materialistic and pessimistic view of the world. What an individual thinks is highly dependent on his social status. Or in other words, it is an individual’s social status and experience that determines what goes on in his mind and not the other way around. This makes Marxism pessimistic as it implies that individuals are mere cogs in The Machine of human civilization. And that those individuals have no control over their own lives, but only exist to act as tools to fulfil tasks that support the system that suppresses them.

Marxism tends to look at history just like a literary critique would generally look at a narrative of a literary work therefore it can be used to interpret almost any event or work of fiction. The downside to this is that it is easy to generalize or even oversimplify any situation into a clash between the classes, a struggle for power, while ignoring all other factors and context related to that specific situation. Marxism also seems to claim that all problems are social problems and do not just exist because of human nature(e.g. Human greed) or the human condition.

Marxism unites people of different backgrounds but divides them into different social classes that compete against each other for power. While I cannot deny that  some conflicts are nothing more power play between groups of people with more and less wealth, not all conflicts and events can be explained so easily. On closer inspection more factors can usually be found.

Despite all of this I think that an healthy dose of Marxism is good to counterbalance the beliefs and social assumptions of whatever culture you live in. And contrary to popular belief I think that Marxism does appeal to common sense- for example if I said that generally speaking people of a higher social status have more opportunities I think that most of you will agree. However again I do not deny the existence of that idealistic kind of Marxism, which can sometimes be destructive but then again that can be said about capitalism and other -isms too.



I can’t write poetry but I did anyway

1. June 2017

At One’s Wit’s End

The Game is up
All first and ‘final’ solutions have by then failed
Death is the Only Consolator
At One’s Wit’s End

There is nothing left to do or be said
Except to watch and wait
As what one loved burns
At One’s Wit’s End

The enemy knocks at the door
Failure that once seemed probable now is inevitable
At One’s Wit’s End.

Death, Your Only Friend waits for you at the back door
Death at the Enemy’s hand or your Friend’s hand
Those are the choices
At One’s Wit’s End

The mind aches and the heart rots,
But it still thinks
It still beats
At One’s Wit’s End

The banging at the front intensifies,
And Death opens the back door
Because one called Her
And then One’s Wit’s Ends.

Fall. Live.

To Live is to Fall
Nations, Religions and Empires fall
But above all,
People fall.

To Live is to Fall
This Fate alone is common to all
Jew, gentile, blackman, white,
Rich and Poor

Men and women are too weak to suffer indefinitely
To fall completely
Humans will form wings in the forms of dreams and illusions
With feathers made of lies and delusions
To raise themselves higher
Only to Fall harder
When the Truth shoots them down

No Longer Human

The Hollow mask of Jocularity And Propriety
Had cracks in them
Madness anxiety crept in

The pills, syringes
The alcohol were not enough
Self-hatred and Pity kept piling up
But not because he knew too little
He knew too much

The large incoherent failure-the City
He had escaped to
Now haunted him
He couldn’t escape from it
He was part of it
It was part of him

Having run out of jocularity
He could no longer be with his ‘comrades’
And having run out of propriety
He sent a telegram to his father:
“Send me your cash and fuck off”
Disqualifies as a human being.

The Observers

Wandering souls with no place to rest
Omnipresent and yet powerless spirits
Lonely as the devil and more envious than he

Outsiders amongst Outsiders
Strangers amongst Strangers
Foreigners amongst Foreigners

Ghosts you see but do not look at
Spirits who see but cannot look
Souls who look but cannot be seeing

Actors who play the role of their audience
In one word, Observers.

The Poisoned Chalice of Love

He thought the antidote to pain was in the chalice
But the only cure for pain is death
Anxiety ends up being the price for his efforts

She becomes an ornament
filled with poison
She always was,
And He was bluffing
Or so he thinks now

A mutually assured misery is ensued
A suicidal policy indeed
A distraction is needed, to lose oneself
To regain the sentiment of Certainty
That he can only gain through Himself
And not through any poisoned chalice
And even then he can always lose it.

The Wine of Desire

Love, Envy, Hate and Happiness-
Different vintages of the same wine
Of the wine of Desire

Red, white, blue
Beauty, Ugliness and Virtue
Are all vignettes of the wine of desire

Life is the grape of desire
And sin and suffering its seed
Death and Fate, the tasters of all desires
But all of them are vintages of desire

Black, Brown, Yellow and Green
The cheapest vintages of desire
But Fate and Determinism with drink all Desire

Youth, Beauty and Health
The lineaments of desire
An ornate picture of life on fire
Hanging from a wall
In a room where Fate sips on Desire
Against Will not without desire.

Abenobashi Review

1. June 2017


A show with too much referential humour without a point to make. This is one of Studio Gainax’s weaker shows.

I had high expectations for this series and was dissapointed I only found the humour in the later episodes to be funny and the conclusion was pretty weak and the resolution contrived. All the characters excluding the two main characters continually get reset to fit the new setting of each episode so there is little to no development. Even the growth of the two main characters gets reset completely finally. Don’t expect any conclusive romance you will only be teased with it, this is just a wacky referential comedy that tries and sometimes succeeds to make fun of anime tropes. To be honest I was expecting more from a Gainax show. The subtitled version I watched was woeful for example it replaced “moe” with “charm” as if they mean the same thing, I think you might be better off watching the dub at least its in English.
The animation looked okay, the characters sometimes looked off model but its mainly for comedic effect in hectic animation scenes. The art style changes in some scenes throughout the series to match the varying settings, all of which reflect the fantasies and wishes of our twelve year old protagonist. In the end however this series ends up celebrating what it is mocking as the main character is chosen by fate to change and undo events in a convenient manner using his newly acquired broken powers while giving out a standard shounen coming of age emotional monologue.
If you like referential comedies which are occasionally self-ridiculing then you might like this. I didn’t like the humour too much as the lines given to the characters in each episode were too repetitive and sometimes they spent a whole episode making fun of the same thing until it got boring, towards the end however especially in the “Hollywood” episode it was quite funny seeing all those references to shows and films like Robocop, Knight Rider, Titanic, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future etc.. all coming and going one after the other with an extra dosage of sexual innuendo.
My main gripe with this series is its ending where the boy is able to win the argument against his father purely out of plot conveniences introduced at the very few last minutes of the show. A very different show with very similar themes called Tatami Galaxy managed with its ending to redeem its otherwise clunky humour and characters with an excellent ending. The opposite could be said about Abenobashi. As a certain anime reviewer used to say “the ending is paramount.”

Well, if nothing else I have to say that the girls look pretty cute in this one and it has got the perverted anime tropes that I love.

Why I don’t want to believe in God. A Reply to Peter Hitchens’ question: ‘Why don’t you want to believe in God?’

23. May 2017

To put it bluntly if there were an omnipotent God then I think He should burn forever in eternal hellfire in deepest depths of hell.


Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens, columnist for the Mail on Sunday has on several occasions asked the question ‘why don’t you want to believe in God?’ in his debates with atheists. He believes that as it is unknowable whether there is a creator to this universe arguments presenting evidence for and against the existence of God and the historical validity of scripture are irrelevant. He has also stated that the reason he wants to believe in God is because he wishes that there was some sort of universal justice or in other words it is highly implied that the reason that people don’t believe in God is because they don’t want to and the reason they don’t want to is because they don’t want there to be universal justice, they want injustice, they want to get away with their evil actions. Hitchens also brings up the fact that he wishes that his dead relatives and friends do not simply disappear and that this is also why he wants to believe in God. Hitchens also implies that as these were his motives for not believing in God in his youth they must be those of his opponents.

Let me start by addressing the last point, I admit that some people may wish not to believe in God because they don’t want to be held morally accountable for their actions however some religious people may want to believe in God for selfish reasons too, for example they may simply be faeces-licking cowardly opportunists with no regard for morality or truth or others but who are simply after a blissful afterlife(pure hedonists) not to mention the moralizing hypocrites and authoritarians who will like leaches latch on to anything  including but not limited to left-wing ideologies and Christianity. The point I am trying to make is that it is possible to believe or disbelieve in God for reasons that have got nothing to do with morality, truth or selflessness. I think it is only fair to mention both.

I don’t want to believe in God for moral reasons – given the level of injustice in this world throughout history which I am sure he is aware of, even if I did believe in God I would only hate him for all this cruelty and I don’t want to live constantly with that sort of hatred in me. This argument is commonly known as The Problem of Evil. To put it bluntly if there were a omnipotent God then I think He should burn forever in eternal hellfire in deepest depths of hell. Speaking of hell Mr. Hitchens fails to mention that to believe in the Christian version of an afterlife means that he must also want to believe that there is a possibility that his close relatives and friends may be burning in that hellfire. Just as the existence of God is unknowable the criteria to get into heaven and into are hell are unknowable, I don’t want to live under constant fear that I or my close relatives and friends may end up in hell for breaking unknowable rules, Hitchens assumes that the Christian rules he adheres to are the right ones but he can only ever assume, frankly this is Orwellian, I think it is Orwell who said that all totalitarian states are in effect theocracies, as it also opens holes for baseless moral authority to seep through and such baseless moral authority can only devalue moral authority as a whole by binding moral authority to superstition and then when the superstition is burned so will the moral authority be gone. I do not wish this to happen and this is why I don’t want to believe in God.

I would also not underestimate the desire for truth in itself as a motive to disbelieve in God. The distinction between agnostic and atheist is an illusive one, most agnostics tends in practice to assume that there is no god, that is to say that they do not believe in god and both insist on the need for evidence to explain phenomena and to brush off the lack of historical validity of the bible is disingenuous. I doubt that Mr. Hitchens would as a journalist given a source which makes ordinary falsifiable claims trust in the unprovable extraordinary claims which it makes simply because it affirmed his own biases.

Note: In the debates I have watched I have seen Peter Hitchens also equate theism with deism and yet provide no justification for this. I feel confused by this point. It would be nice if he could provide some further clarification. Not that I would expect him to read this little blog.


22. May 2017

[The Question Answered]
What is it men in women do require?
The lineaments of gratified desire.
What is it women do in men require?
The lineaments of gratified desire. – Willaim Blake, Several Questions Answered

The relationship between men and women cannot be reduced to a simple antagonism obviously. It is true that we are all pushing our ideals on others and that’s fine to an extent after all we are the ones who have to live with and look at one another. Let me put it bluntly to the MGTOW crowd, what women desire in you is most likely what you desire in yourself. I don’t see a conflict of interest there. I don’t think that the MGTOW ideology has a positive effect on behaviour. I can understand that there are certain injustices in the family court system that ought to be corrected and that things like boys education in the west need to be reformed, however, these societal problems are hardly a reason to cast all women as hypergamous treacherous opportunists. All human beings act out of self-interest to an extent, that’s a given, for men and women, they are not saints. I am not deaf to the bitter men on MGTOW forums with their personal stories of being betrayed and humiliated by women – by their girlfriends, wives, mothers and by the women who they fancied, I am sure it hurts, however let me ask you this, in an ideal world in which going your own way was not necessary what would women be like? Would they be saints? Saints who would never betray you and who would never hurt you or stop loving you? If you look closely enough your desires are not that different from those of women.

I am tired of the ‘nice guy’ stereotype being plastered all over any debate people have with you, but keep in mind that just like you can’t help applying the standards you do on women nor can women help it. Any and every kind of discrimination is present and allowable during mate selection after all if you take away the right of others to discriminate who they want to have a romance with then on what grounds can you discriminate on what kind of partner you want? A solution to this can be found in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World where it is very impolite not to have sex with anyone who asks you to, but given the largely conservative underpinnings of the MGTOW movement I doubt that that would be palatable to you, and even if I am wrong such a thing is not possible yet.

To elaborate more on my point that ‘women desire in you is what you desire in yourself’ lets look at the most common accusation levied against women by MGTOW, that of hypergamy, now it is true that roughly speaking human females mate across and up dominance hierarchies. But let me ask you this, if it weren’t for women would you really want to be at the bottom of as many dominance hierarchies as you could?Obviously not, therefore there is no conflict of interest hereas far as mate selection is concerned but then what about after a couple has been formed and the girl runs off to another man with a deeper pocket purely because of his status? Well, then you have my full endorsement in evaluating her as a gold-digging whore. Now, onto my next point, actually it’s more of a complaint – I really don’t like the language used by MGTOW and for that matter the pickup artist community, talking about ‘alpha male’ ‘beta male’ and so on. Human behaviour outside of high school is a bit more complex than that (for one because there are many more dominance hierarchies to consider). But let’s set aside my amateur sociology before I make a fool of myself, if it’s not too late for that.

I don’t really really think I can convince you to stop being a MGTOW, I just hope this was an interesting read. But hey, girls are not that bad. They are just as bad as we are. Oops I hope I didn’t offend a feminist there. And remember try to treat people as individuals in your personal lives, give them the benefit of the doubt, they might just turn out not to be arseholes, in politics, ah, it’s hard.


Abortion and other socially permissible forms of murder

22. May 2017

“Abortion is murder and is immoral but ethical” – Vee

I have been reluctantly in favour of abortion for a long time, and after watching this video my opinion has remained unchanged. It is a form of murder but looking at the social consequences banning abortion has it is a socially permissible form of murder. I believe the social consequences of banning abortion in Romania are enough of a justification for this.

But the question then is, if this is a socially permissible form of murder then what other permissible forms of murder are there? What’s the criteria? I am not a pacifist and I believe that some wars are justified consequently I have to accept that it is justifiable to for soldiers to kill the minimum number of combatants and civilians necessary to win wars, as Orwell put it to say that war is evil is a one-eyed view, but then again war is evil. I believe that the same can be said about abortion, that is to say that abortion is evil is a one-eyed view but then again it is evil. The point I am trying to make is that just because an individual is innocent of any crime that doesn’t that it is unjustifiable to kill him or her, and this applies to civilians in a war as much as it does to a baby in a womb.

The analogy that Vee brings up of a private hospital being forced to give expensive life- support to a poor patient brings to the forth the moral dilemma that that I have been facing when it comes to abortion. Is it right for the hospital to be forced to give expensive life-support to the patient who will not be able to pay for it? Is it right to let the poor man die? To state the obvious, the choice seems to me to be between one wrong and another wrong. So ‘why do I choose the woman over the child?’ is the question that those in favour of abortion should ask themselves and ‘why do I choose the  baby over the woman?” is the question that those against abortion should ask them selves, now I know some of the people against are going to say “but Stefan, we don’t want the woman to die and they want the child to die, clearly we have the higher moral ground” on a superficial level they do but there is a high likely hood that that child’s and that woman’s life may be ruined. It’s like argument people have about drugs being a victim-less crime when clearly the families of drug addicts have been adversely affected by their drug abuse. I do believe that doctor’s should try to convince a women to not have an abortion by reassuring her that she will still have options in life by bearing that child, but those options actually need to be there, i.e. properly funded orphanages, financial and family support etc… and if the woman still feels that she needs to have an abortion then she must be allowed to have one. Perfect is the enemy of good, I am not satisfied with this solution but to try to find a perfect and final solution by either banning abortions entirely or marketing abortions in a ‘come and have an abortion 2 for the price of 1’ manner as Vee put it is only going to make people morally disgusted and against abortion. In foresight I predict that some may criticise Vee’s analogy for dehumanizing the woman, to that I have to say that they are right to an extent but it also accurately represents the power relationships between the baby and the mother, and for those, if there are any (I hope not) that are bothered that the analogy humanizes the baby by casting as ‘the poor man’, well in the case of late-term abortions it is hard to not consider it a human.

Another form of murder that is socially permissible in many places is the death penalty. I have failed to see any conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters crime but I don’t think it is unjustifiable for the state to kill someone entirely as a form of revenge for the party that has been wronged. I do think however that this lends purely vindictive mode of thinking, or in other words the reason that a woman must not have an abortion is not really because it would harm the child but because the mother should be held responsible for her actions just like a criminal must be killed for his crimes a woman must be punished for her crime, i.e. having sex. I hope that it looks I am setting up a straw-man because that is the gist of argument I have seen the youtuber Black Pigeon Speaks make. The problem with being against abortion and also against the death penalty seems to to be that in one case one has dispense the view that the innocent should not be killed and in the other one has to hold the view that the guilty must not be killed because the potentially innocent must not be killed. Now I am sure that the pro-choice people will say that these are two separate issues, and indeed in many ways they are, but the similarity is that in both cases the discussion hinges on what circumstances it is justifiable to end someone’s life and by ignoring the social consequences and purely judging the amount the crimes committed by fetus and by the criminal, the criminal is (potentially) guilty of a serious crime while the fetus is not. It all comes back to the million dollar question, at what point does a fetus become a baby but that information is not available to us because the science to determine at which point we become conscious still isn’t there, so we cannot answer that question therefore I have decided to turn towards the social consequences of abortion and the death penalty to decide whether I am for or against them. And I have reached the conclusion that while the death penalty does not seriously deter crime banning abortion has a significantly adverse effect on society by causing dangerous illegal abortions. There is a possibility that some pro-lifers may feel like these are not my real motives and will therefore bypass all of the points I have made and accuse me of actually being in favour of abortion because I want to have sex without repercussions, this is a motive fallacy as well as whataboutism or a tu quoque, of the same kind by the way used by the pro-life movement when they say that men should not have a say on whether abortion should be allowed or not, as if the validity of an opinion depended on gender. Nonetheless so that it doesn’t look like I am trying to dodge an accusation merely by quoting this or that fallacy, I will answer such accusations in kind by asking the following question from them: Do you want sex to have dire consequences? It goes without saying that sex has got its risks whether we want them to be there or not and I believe that we should do what is necessary to reduce such risks, now as to what exactly is necessary to reduce such risks is debatable but accusing pro-lifers of wanting to have sex without repercussions is disingenuous as it would suggest that we ought to make the repercussions for having sex as painful and damaging as possible.

Note: Please do not say that not all killing is murder because that opens the can of worms that is saying that the killings we find convenient are not murder while those that our opponents find convenient are murders. Please do not engage in such sophistry.

Finally on a related note I have to say that positive natality is evil, by this I mean politically mandated higher birthrates, now communist Romania(Ceausescu’s Romania) was obviously an extreme form of this. Now I know that a lot of people are extremely worried by the reduction in birth rates in the West and in the Far East but we must not panic, eventually the economic situation is going to become so dire that the birth rates will increase again as people become poorer and so less educated or the economic situation may improve and birth rates may improve. What the state should do is not hand out money to women who have more children as this ends up with women having more children than they can raise just to get the money, no what the state should do is to make it cheaper to bring up children and to give more opportunities to the young, or in other words do what’s necessary to improve the economic situation. Mass immigration can only be a temporary patch and as it has become clear that can have negative effects on the stability of the state.

The following is an informative BBC documentary about the ban on abortions because Ceausescu’s obsession with increasing the birth rates.

The Problem with Blogging and “New” Media

22. May 2017

Journalism can broadly be divided into social commentary  and reporting. I think Christopher Hitchens was right when he pointed out that the problem with blogging and news commentators is that it is essentially feeding off “old” media. I think that what he means by that is that bloggers (i.e. politics youtube videos, most social commentary on the internet) do not have the resources to do their own reporting so they are dependent and effectively leaching off traditional media. Arguably any social commentator, and that includes Christopher Hitchens is dependent on other sources and reporters for their news but this is more true for bloggers to the extent where it feels they may be just regurgitating what is already available, that they are just reading news out of the papers and make it seem new by putting their own spin on it. I guess in defense of political bloggers and youtubers it could be said that they are bringing to the forth stories that would otherwise go unnoticed and are ignored by the public and by the media but the criticism still stands that they are just social commentators and not reporters.

Why I don’t think it matters that Japanese Animators are under paid and over worked

22. May 2017

So recently I have seen a lot articles complaining about how the anime industry is dying and so forth because animators aren’t paid enough.

Well to put it bluntly, this has always been the case, the guiding principle of Japanese animation from the time of Ozamu Tezuka is to pay a little money to poor people.

Why do people hate anime?

21. May 2017

Can somebody tell me why there are so many people who hate anime? It’s like it is cool to hate anime. And I see all the time people saying that otakus/weebs are misrepresenting Japanese culture or hating their own culture but do they really? This is usually followed by some condescending waffle about how reality in Japan is not like anime and that Japanese people hate otakus. As if people who watch anime can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction. We all know that the Japanese don’t like otakus but it’s not to be liked by the Japanese that we watch anime, what’s your point?