TOP・UPDATES・FOUR PILLARS・CINEMA/TV・GAMES・MANGA/ANIME・MUSIC・WRITINGS・FAQ・LINKS

MY POLITICAL POSITIONS

The political compass test can be useful to get a broad idea of where someone stands, but it necessarily oversimplifies everything. I could be very "left-wing" in some areas and very "right-wing" in others, depending on how you look at things. I've lived in the USA and Japan, so those are the countries that I have most experience with and informed opinions about, so I speak from their perspective. However, they are very different countries with very different histories, so parts of my opinion would change depending on what country I'm talking about. My "four pillars" section sketches out what I would consider my four greatest general values. However, those can be kind of airy and abstract. Some people might be curious about where I stand in regard to the real world that we all have to live in. I don't want to just be an armchair theorist. I want people to actually vote and engage with the real world in a way that will make a difference. That's why I'm writing this.

Environmentalism
Government
Economy
Law and Order
Globalization
Nationalism
Geopolitics
Cultural Issues

Parenting
Schooling
Religion
Feminism
Sex
LGBT
Firearms
Vices
Race

1. Environmentalism

Today, environmentalism is not just one policy among others when it comes to political action. Protection of the environment via first and foremost the reduction of carbon emissions is THE action of politics today. If society collapses because of climate disaster, then nothing else will matter anyway. The first and foremost question you should ask when it comes to any policy whatsoever is "does this contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions?"

Ideally, we should have a society that has negative carbon emissions. This means, first and foremost, no more coal, oil, or natural gas as energy sources. There are a lot of good renewable energy sources that go beyond just solar and wind. These include wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, hydroelectric power, osmotic power, underwater turbines, and OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion). A lot of making these technologies scale upwards will consist not in making them match our current energy output, but in reducing our current energy output. And that doesn't mean some Klaus Schwab "eat ze bugs" dystopia, but rather a focus on making things more efficient. We all know the risks of nuclear energy, but I think that if it's the only option that can compete with fossil fuels on a realistic level, we have to go for it.

How do we get there? Well, it's obviously not easy. The coal, oil, and natural gas industries have an enormous amount of weight to throw around. I'd love to say "fossil fuels are illegal by 2050, replace your industry with renewables or die, motherfuckers" to big corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, etc., but we know that the solution has to be a bit more sophisticated than that. For starters, I would say government intervention via cap-and-trade policies and carbon pricing along with international agreements with real teeth (that is, binding punishments for not abiding) is a proven method that works. Similar things worked to largely solve the problems of acid rain and ozone depletion. And since these could be done without radical change to the capitalist world as we know it, they are probably the best place to start. People talk about a "green new deal" of sorts and I think the idea of it is great. Ideally, we should be able to bring some level of nationalization to the energy, transportation, and agricultural sectors of the economy to ensure that they are moving in the right direction. The government is far from perfect, but it has to at least pretend to have accountability to the people, unlike a corporation which has no reason to not destroy the planet for short-term profits.

I will stay mostly academic in this discussion and just talk about my opinion instead of strategy. But let me make a quick appeal: It is essential to vote for whichever candidate has the best environmental policy. PLEASE do it if you can. However, in the United States, when it comes to presidential votes, you should vote for a Green Party candidate only if you are in a consistently blue state like California or New York which will almost always vote Democrat. You should do this to send a message, give them more funding, make the other parties try to integrate their values, etc. The Democratic Party is one of two big business parties and their environmental record is far from stellar, but it's an undeniable improvement from the science-denying Republican Party. If you are in a swing state or a red state, you need to vote for a Democratic candidate who has a better chance of winning. I wish I didn't have to be a shill for Democrats, but when it comes to the threat of climate destruction, I have to. Of course, the big problem is focusing only on voting on the presidential level. There is a much greater ability to make real changes for the environment on the level of your city and your state.

2. Government

What would an ideal government look like? Well, considering that developments (good and bad ones) in technology and globalization mean that we probably can't go back to something like the Iroquois Confederacy, I would say that the ideal would be something like The Venus Project. That is, a resource-based economy with the need for human governing automated away by machines. Of course, that's a highly utopian vision. We are still in a position where the world would be markedly worse without a state than it would be with one. Without a state, we would cede control to corporations which don't even have to pretend to care about the people. And I think that while democracy is often deeply flawed, it still empirically seems to be producing better results than monarchies and one-party states in the modern era. A democracy requires active participation to function, which is why it seems inefficient. If everyone was actively engaged, things would look a lot different. While I am by no means optimistic that this will happen, the possibility at least exists more than in monarchies or one-party states. But if you can convince me that they have a better chance of ensuring environmental conservation, freedom, safety, and a shift to a post-government world, I will have open ears.

I've lived in two very different countries: the USA and Japan. One of them directly cast off the idea of royalty and formed in direct opposition to it. The other one has had a royal family that was considered divine for over two thousand years before being forced to become a secular and democratic society. Since I grew up in the USA, I have to admit that it is very difficult to understand what having a national royal family means on a personal level. So take the following with a massive grain of salt. It is more of a guess than anything. I think that having an Emperor, like Japan does, provides some spiritual value for the people and therefore is a very important thing to preserve. Having some form of chief, leader, etc. is something that seems to emerge naturally in animal species. But I also think that these hierarchies should be largely spiritual and not have any state authority. In some ways, the less human they appear, the better. That is why I think that the modern era of turning royal families into media darlings is a problem. The Emperor must be mysterious and elusive. This gives him a sense of ineffability and allows others to project their ideals onto him. He becomes a vessel to embody the will of the people, but no human can ever actually do this. Therefore his public form, to what degree it exists at all, should be largely confined to artistic, performative, and religious ceremonies of enormous solemnity.

3. Economy

I've gone back and forth a lot about to what degree I see myself on the economic scale. Social democrat? Democratic socialist? Anarcho-communist? I would say that, like everything, my economic views are first and foremost governed by one thing: what will lead to a sharp, immediate reduction in carbon emissions across the planet? Whatever economic system is best equipped for this is what I support. In the short term, I think the best chance for that is social democracy: an overall capitalist society with some extremely strong regulations and government checks. I think that is realistic for the time being. Most critically is the heavy restriction of fossil fuels and other conservation of natural resources. Ideally I would want a complete nationalization of the energy, transportation, and possibly even argicultural sectors for the purpose of this aggressive carbon reduction. In the absence of this, the only feasible way I can think of would be by the government setting a price on carbon, cap-and-trade policies, international treaties, etc. So, first and foremost, what economy do I support? Our economy, minus fossil fuels. Then let's talk about everything else. We'll discuss where we're going to land once we get off the sinking ship and into the lifeboat.

So many people today use the words "capitalism," "socialism," and "communism" in an incredibly loose fashion. I think the problem comes from failing to distinguish between the ECONOMIC MODELS of capitalism and communism and what have come to be conceived of as the IDEOLOGIES of capitalism and communism. All capitalism means, strictly, is the basics you'll learn in Econ 101: private ownership of the means of production, production and allocation based on markets, and labor paid to employees through wages. Anything that falls under this umbrella is still capitalism. The USA is capitalist. All countries in Europe are capitalist. China is capitalist. Saudi Arabia is capitalist. Nazi Germany was capitalist. There are a lot of repugnant things in many modern capitalist countries, but we need to be clear about which ones are inescapable based on this economic model and which are not. A lot of modern Americans have been under decades of propaganda from right-wing Republican pundit retards saying that unions or public healthcare or whatever are socialism to the point that they believe "Oh, that's socialism? Well socialism sounds pretty based then, sign me up!" without realizing that they really just want social democracy.

The more fundamental problem with capitalism that seems most difficult to smooth out with good restrictions alone is the way that it rewards constant growth. Our earth just can't sustain constant growth anymore. The desire for constant growth also is what fuels human greed and almost all the other evils of modern capitalism. However, rampant and unchecked growth and industrialization has been just as disastrous in countries that have been economically non-capitalist like the USSR and Maoist China. Our enemy is growth. It destroys our environment, our culture, and our daily lives. Now, it could be possible to retain private ownership of means of production, markets, and wage labor without unchecked growth as long as it is in a very small, local, tiny community. Like most other things, I think the best answer is moving away from globalization and making communities more locally based and connected.

That is obviously quite a difficult thing to accomplish in our modern globalized economy. As an economic model for the entire earth, free market capitalism is a disaster. An alternative model at a mass scale today would probably only be possible via something like The Venus Project: a mass global decentralized society with no money or markets ran by superhuman AI algorithms that can take the place of government in order to distribute resources. Considering recent advances in AI, that's not as sci-fi as it might have sounded in the past. That's the only thing that I think could allocate goods as efficiently as the free market. Of course, efficiency doesn't equal morality by any means, which is where the ills of modern free market capitalism are born in the first place. But a superhuman AI at least has the potential to have moral adjustments made to it. The invisible hand does not.

So, realistically, what do I think a good thing to do about it is? I have two fronts I want you to act on, and they are connected:

In your personal life, downsize. Stop consuming. Buy everything used that you can. Repair before buying a replacement. Eat what is local. Cook as much of your own food as you can instead of going to a restaurant. Grow your own food if you want to be hardcore. Learn to find joy in simplicity. Starve the beast of modern capitalism. There are enough old games, movies, manga, anime, etc. to last a lifetime. Stop engaging with the modern world of hyper-consumerist dreck. It is hard to resist the desire to constantly accumulate at the expense of everyone else. It is the same horrible human tendency that created a society where a man could be born and raised as a slave, somehow manage to scrape together the money and good graces to buy his freedom, and then go out and buy slaves of his own. But there will always be some people with strong enough moral clarity to resist. The answer is to be satisfied after a certain amount of self-sufficiency, want to live a simple life, and to resist greed.

Now, in your political life (your voting, your activism, etc.), three words: universal basic income. Also known as negative income tax (basically the same thing). So many people in assembly-line jobs and other menial, degrading work are afraid of automation because it means that they don't have to do their job anymore. They should be singing the praises of automation instead! Their enemy is not the automation that makes their job obsolete. Their enemy is their asshole CEO whose instinct is to fire them to squeeze every inch of money out of them that he can instead of allowing his employees to work fewer hours for the same pay while still increasing his bottom line because of the increased efficiency. Copyright should also be abolished.

If we could get into a kind of capitalism with no growth, we could now get into the question of whether private ownership of the means of production, markets, and wage labor are inherently good or bad. In an ideal society, everything would be owned collectively, which would make these things irrelevant. But I would not want to do this with my physical property right now. I would, however, be willing to if I lived in a small tribe instead of a large city, because I would have greater trust. The smaller, more connected, and less globalized communities are, the more we can work towards collective ownership. And on the other hand, if something is digital and therefore able to be copied and reproduced indefinitely, there is already no reason to put limits on it. Files can have creators, but never owners.

And above all, remember: GLOBAL NET ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS FIRST. Everything else will come after that. If we don't get the emissions down, nothing else will matter because society will not be around for it anyway.

4. Law and Order

An ideal society would have no laws. That is because everyone would have a unified morality and everyone would be adequately prosperous enough that no wars were fought between nations. This is, of course, a far cry from where we are today and is probably impossible to fully realize. I have a lot of opinions about what particular laws there should be or not be, but I don't plan to spell them all out here. This section is more about how laws are to be enforced, criminals prosecuted, etc. Of course, the best prevention of crime is to make society good enough that fewer people are drawn to criminality, but that's what the other sections are for. This is about how to deal with bad actors to what degree they still exist.

Some degree of safety is worth sacrificing for the preservation of rights to privacy and other social liberties. Something like China's social credit system is a dystopian nightmare. I would much rather take a chance of getting hurt in a country where people are freer. Gamifying things like this is usually the worst way to try to improve the morals of a country. It has to be born naturally and communally. Usually this means improving the material conditions of the society. I have talked about censorship in my fourth pillar and am 100% against it. Read that for a more detailed discussion, but censorship occurs on social, economic, and state levels and all need to be vigorously fought against.

I think prison should be an option for the most severe crimes. What do those include? Murder, treason, fraud, theft of significant MATERIAL items, destruction of the environment or great works of art, etc. Of course the conditions of a lot of prisons, even in "civilized" countries, are completely unacceptable. There are some other good alternatives for minor crimes: probation periods, halfway houses, house arrest, financial compensation, community service, asylums for mentally ill individuals, and even some pretty new-agey restorative justice methods. It would have to vary a lot depending on the crime, but I think a lot of these are promising and it would be nice to move towards some of them. One that I think sounds nice for smaller communities is public humiliation: if the criminal robbed a store, he has to stand outside the store for a number of hours with a sign that says "I robbed this store and cost the community upwards of X dollars" or something like that. Of course, the criminal should be supervised so that no one is violent towards him while he does it. But he should be allowed to hear the stories of people he caused pain. I am generally against the death penalty. I think that a lifetime in solitary confinement can be in many ways much more punishing than the death penalty.

Vaccines for global pandemics should be mandated for most jobs, schools, etc., but only the first one. mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna should have their patents removed so they can be distributed more widely around the world. Booster shots should not be mandated, but that's not because there's anything wrong with them. It just seems like a reasonable line to draw. Masks suck but are usually essential in times of extreme contagion. The best thing to do is try to create a society that can stop pandemics before they spread so that we don't have to mask up again. I fucking hate masks. But what can I say, I have to keep myself from spreading the disease to the most vulnerable in society, like old people and children. Pandemics will continue to come in the future because the increase in viruses is an unfortunate side-effect of an interconnected global economy. The best we can do is try to restructure society so that peoples' livelihoods are not destroyed by them (universal basic income will help) and have a strong, robust Center for Disease Control. And like everything else, it is an argument against globalization and towards rural, autonomous living.

It should go without saying that COVID-19 is a real disease and although a lot of bad-faith actors exploited it to do all kinds of horrible stuff, it isn't some depopulation scheme by Bill Gates and George Soros to make people sterile. Although, considering how overpopulated the world is, it would be pretty based if it was. COVID-19 is a cry being released out from the earth telling everyone to slow down and let the forces of nature heal themselves from their industrial wounds, and it would be wise to listen.

So much for domestic law. As such a fan of multiculturalism and of cultures being able to evolve in radically different ways without the force of the globohomo death spiral, I would love for all countries to be able to be totally isolationist and not give a shit about any other on the level of the state and just let cultures naturally shape themselves. But this is just not possible when we have things like global heating, the threat of nuclear war, and global pandemics to consider. I think it's inevitable to have something like the UN and Interpol because of these. And I support it insofar as it focuses on important things like environmentalism, peacekeeping, prevention of destruction of cultural heritage monuments, relief for natural disasters, etc. I am deeply opposed to institutions like the UN becoming crypto-American cultural agents for the whole world, especially when they do so in a massively hypocritical manner (i.e. when they try to impose restrictions on lolicon but give a pass to oil-rich Islamic theocracies that treat women and girls like slaves).

5. Globalization

Globalization, on some level, is inevitable. Our technology simply connects us with each other to a far greater degree than we ever have been in history, and that's never getting scaled back unless there is a mass global catastrophe that destroys all our technology. As someone who greatly appreciates having a website like this, I hope that doesn't happen. Globalization is a complicated topic and it has had many beneficial as well as harmful effects on humanity. It has never been so easy to talk to people from all around the world and learn about other cultures in an authentic way. Being able to look up information about, talk to, joke with, play video games with, etc. people from other countries has massively increased the general baseline knowledge that people have of other places around the world and has in all likelihood gone a long way towards making people less xenophobic, which has gone a great way towards decreasing the likelihood of wars. These are the kind of good results of globalization. However, being so interconnected has eroded away a lot of the meaningful, interesting "culture shocks" we can experience. A lot of the big cities around the world start to all look the same. We see the same stores, hear the same music, people have the same hobbies, etc. There's something very important that gets lost when traditional ways of life disappear.

We can make a good analogy to the problem of biodiversity loss. In our modern era, the biodiversity (number of species on earth) is in sharp free-fall. We're in the midst of a mass extinction. There are many factors for this, and carbon emissions heating up the planet and shifting our climates is undoubtedly the largest. But another very big one is the mass number of animals being shipped around the globe, intentionally or unintentionally. You might know some examples of invasive species that have destroyed native food chains: cane toads from Central America coming to Australia, kudzu from Japan coming to the American South, domestic cats destroying native bird populations, etc. But these are just the big stories. Tons and tons of species travel around the globe unnoticed at a far greater rate than ever before. How easy is it for a snail to hitch a ride on a truck exporting some fruit? E.O. Wilson made an analogy or what is happening here: Imagine that you had several vats of different liquid solutions and each one was connected by a tube that is normally sealed off. But you unsealed the tubes between the different vats for just 20 seconds a day, allowing a little bit of the solutions to mix and disperse together. Just give it enough time and you would have the exact same solution in each vat. That is what is happening globally: the biodiversity of most individual REGIONS is increasing, but the overall GLOBAL biodiversity is in free-fall, because the more vulnerable species are being killed from all this over-exposure.

The same thing is basically happening with cultures around the world. Introduce people to some foreign food, they like it, and then they start eating that food a bit more and some example of their own native food a bit less. If enough people do it, it can put that native food out of business and a part of their culture disappears. Think about how many people speak English in Europe now. It's very hard to go to a country like Germany if you're an American and practice your German. The moment they realize you aren't a native speaker, they'll switch in the interest of making things move along more smoothly. But gradually that erodes the amount of German you hear on a daily basis there. There can be many more examples, but I trust that you see the principle now: globalization is collapsing all the distances, and when there aren't distances between cultures, it's difficult for them to develop to be legitimately different from each other. This is because "major powers" like America in the past century and perhaps China as well in the upcoming century outcompete other "weaker" cultures in a globalized environment. And that is tragic.

Like I said, a lot of globalization might simply be inevitable because of technology. I think that all we can do about it politically is to make sure that it serves the interest of humanity instead of large corporations. And a lot of that consists of investing in and promoting our cultural touchstones. A lot of this is tied to the tourism industry however, and we should be very careful to not destroy areas, especially areas with a lot of nature, through "over-tourism." However, most of this has to come down to the responsibility of individuals: travel less, but more meaningfully. But don't become isolationist and chauvinistic either. That goes into the next section.

6. Nationalism

I love multiculturalism and diversity. There is nothing more beautiful than the countless varieties of ways that people have come together, organized societies, and created meaning together all across our globe and throughout the span of history. This is why I am against what usually goes by the name "multiculturalism" in modern megacities. And it is also why I oppose what usually goes by the name "nationalism." These are two sides of the same coin of destroying real multiculturalism and diversity. Let me explain.

In the section about globalization, I explained how so much of the world is starting to become homogenized because everything is in such greater reach to each other. This raises the amount of "diversity" of cultures in any one area, but it decreases the overall "diversity" of cultures around the globe. This is because when cultures that are very different have to share the same space, they have to give up some of their incompatible characteristics in a give-and-take relationship to maintain harmony. It results in those cultures becoming cheapened and gradually being eroded. So on the one hand, the modern sense of "multiculturalism" actually goes against multiculturalism in the long run. The common response to this is the growth of nationalism. But nationalism is not only usually morally misguided, but also often actually damages multiculturalism in exactly the same way.

Every "nation" is a certain enclosed border with a number of different "cultures" within its borders. This is obvious when it comes to large countries like the USA, China, Russia, etc. In the modern era, attempts at creating nationalism in these countries entails actually destroying the minority cultures in their borders. Nationalism in the USA entails destroying the cultures of indigenous tribes. Nationalism in China entails destroying the cultures of places like Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang. Nationalism in the USSR and modern Russia to an extent entails destroying the cultures of places like Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. But this even happens in very small countries. The reason it does is that when you create an image of your nation, you have to stereotype and include/exclude certain things. In Japan, for example, it is almost unanimously illegal to hunt and eat deer. Deer are famously considered sacred animals in Nara, which is a famous symbol of Japan's tradition, history, and identity. However, in Hokkaidou and around the rural Suwa region of Nagano, there are certain traditions of hunting and eating deer, because their cultures were so isolated from the "standard" of Japan for so long and they continued a very old form of Shintou that was untouched by Buddhist ideas of vegetarianism. A crude form of nationalism would force all these small areas that don't quite fit the stereotypical image of the nation to conform and would destroy something very valuable and rare in the process.

In short, I am highly supportive of what might be termed "cultural preservation," but not nationalism. I don't like or believe in the Marxist hyper-focus on class and material conditions at the expense of culture. I believe very strongly in the preservation of culture and tradition and teaching its importance. But none of this requires the worship of an abstract entity called the "nation." Blind allegiance to the "nation" often results in the destruction of cultures within the nation's border. "Pride" is also a mistaken idea to tie into "cultural preservation." You should never feel "proud" of being a certain nationality, race, etc. Nor should you feel proud of being from a certain culture, lineage, etc. You should only feel "proud" of things that you yourself have accomplished. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't find meaning and value in the culture you are a part of. The preservation of a culture should be seen like the preservation of an animal species or piece of nature. It's something we all need to do our part in. It's something we can find joy in and that makes our lives better. But if it's your primary source of pride, that probably means that you're a loser.

How can immigration function when we are so concerned with the preservation of "native" cultures? Well, immigration is different in every country. But too much immigration can destroy a culture. This happens even inside countries. It's strange to me that so many left-wing people will downplay the idea of this happening while also being the first to recognize the negative effects of gentrification, which is basically just the same thing but on a smaller scale. But I do believe that immigrants can ultimately learn to adapt and become part of the culture they move to. They just have to be very dedicated. I'm not sure what the best way to ensure this politically is. Maybe it's limiting the number of accepted immigrants, maybe it's making immigrants required to pass tests of culturally competency, maybe it's requiring "socialization" in the native culture. But a lot of it probably comes more to a strong sense of cultural engagement from the native population to make it harder for newcomers to adapt. That hardness isn't because of xenophobia. It's to make the hurdle high so that those who manage to adapt fully will truly make the culture better and also be happier and more at home.

7. Geopolitics

What is my guiding principle in most geopolitical issues? I am against imperialism. I am against countries invading others and taking them over either with direct or indirect strategies. It is a huge problem for the preservation of glorious human diversity and the manifold cultures on the earth, as it means that small minority cultures get bullied out of existence. Of course, problems like global heating and the threat of nuclear war require all countries to work together. But this has generally been used as a cudgel to beat underdeveloped nations. And it happens all over the world. That said, I can't give an informed opinion about all current conflicts and controversies. Most of them would require me to do more historical research to know what to do with. I will say a few words about the ones that concern me most though.

As a general rule, I'm against direct US intervention around the world and hawkish foreign policy. However, a lot of young left-wingers have turned this into a pathological anti-Americanism to the point that they defend repressive, authoritarian governments like China and literal terrorist organizations like Hamas just because LOL AMERICA BAD. You aren't impressing anyone, my friend. There's room to be critical of US foreign policy without whitewashing atrocities. Being blindly against everything America does is just as braindead as being blindly supportive of it all.

The government of Russia puts the entire world at peril by engaging in subversive, aggressive activity in border countries like Ukraine and Georgia. This is to the detriment of the entire world, which needs to be working together and abandoning fossil fuel use. Of course, they don't care because they are cold enough that they think that global heating won't matter very much for them (they are wrong). In a situation where the country has decided to be so violent and brutish, the US has no choice but to do what European countries are by and large doing: supply Ukraine with weapons, information, and funds, but do our best to avoid being pulled into the fighting. As always, we must remember that many, many Russians do not support Vladimir Putin or his regime.

The government of China is a repressive, authoritarian, dystopian nightmare organization who read 1984 and thought that the government sounded based. They are destroying Tibet, which is one of the holiest places on earth, and the cultural erasure campaigns in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are no less heinous. Taiwan is an independent country and the only reason it can't be recognized as such is because China are a bunch of bullies. That said, I think that the approach of rapid militarization towards China from the US is completely boneheaded. I see no great evidence that China is preparing a full-on military invasion of Taiwan the way that Russia did for Ukraine. If that happened, I honestly don't know what I would want the US to do. I think it could actually lead to the complete extermination of the human race. The US needs to do quite the contrary: work with China so they can transition away from fossil fuels. China is a terrible place but the vast majority of their "subversive influence" on other countries is only contingent on you supporting corrupt, horrible entertainment companies that will simp to authoritarian regimes for profit.

Settlements in the West Bank and other aggressive action by Israeli Zionists are dangerous, foolish, and deeply upsetting to order and safety in the Middle East. The government of Israel has a lot of nasty, bad actors in it. That said, I find it really funny when rich, suburban "communists" with trans flag patches in wealthy western countries simp for Hamas. You would be thrown off a building in a second if you lived in the state that Hamas wants. Israel is, quite simply put, a better state than any of the other Middle Eastern countries around them, because they have better values of liberalism, freedom of speech, etc., even as their retarded Zionists seek to destroy those. That is why Israel needs to find a peaceful two-state solution with Palestine, probably pay them some form of reparataions, and stop encroaching on their territory. Yes, it would be nice if we could rewind the clock a hundred years and not settle the land in the first place, but that's about as likely as the US giving all land back to the native tribes at this point.

In 2018, South Korean and North Korean leaders Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un adopted the historic Panmunjom Declaration to cooperate on officially ending the Korean War and focus on gradually improving relations, cooperating for mutual prosperity, and even moving towards an eventual peaceful reunification and the complete abolishment of nuclear arms in the Korean peninsula. This is, of course, incredibly based. What should other countries, especially the US, China, and Russia, do? Offer their congratulations and support, GTFO, and let the Koreans settle their family dispute on their own terms.

There are plenty of other conflicts going on across the world, but it's better to remain silent when you don't have an informed opinion.

8. Cultural Issues

In America especially, there is a hyper-focus on "cultural" issues and a coordinated effort to make it seem like "cultural" issues are the be-all and end-all of politics. That is so people can continue getting economically fucked in the ass, have their environment destroyed, and have their freedom of expression stolen away through the institution of copyright and monopolization of the media. So it's important to not give cultural questions more credit than they deserve. If globalization and capitalism are largely reigned in, a lot of cultural questions will stop being an issue and become solved locally instead of at the government level. That is the way they should be. Of course, culture plays an enormous role in how a society acts and what goes on within it. But cultural questions can't be legislated in the same way that a lot of other issues can.

The mass media is complicit in the promotion of "cultural" issues and is primarily the reason that "cultural" issues are given so much more time in the limelight than they deserve. Even if you are watching a more honest channel that doesn't lie about the severity of something like global heating, they will downplay it by turning it into just one issue among many. A forest fire one day, a tranny in a bathroom the next. Bullshit. Of course, independent "journalists" on YouTube are even worse, because they have every one of the same incentives to lie to you and deceive you, but not even the slightest accountability. A news program at the very least cannot straight up lie to you, but only be sneaky and deceptive in how they report things. A YouTube pundit has none of the same responsibility. And we all know that "cultural issues" rile people up and make them emotional. It is much easier to report on some trans shit than it is to report on some kind of economic policy that actually affects people. Of course, we all need to engage with news sources to stay informed. But if it's a story about some cultural issue, 90% of the time you don't need to engage with it because it's there to distract you from environmental degradation.

This doesn't stop at simply the news. The more "mass" a media is, the less value it holds, the more it can brainwash the public, and the more damaging it becomes. The media is a very powerful tool to divide and conquer people. The more people fight about "representation," the less they figure out how to change material reality. The more time people spend bickering about what color the actor playing Pocahontas is in some new Disney live action remake, the less time they spend trying to advocate for indigenous tribes to regain legal ownership of their ancestral lands. All mass entertainment industries enforce an agenda of conformity, consumerism, and blindness to the degrading quality of material reality around us. Of course, the answer to this isn't censorship. It's on all of us to ignore the mass media and create and consume entertainment that is small, independent, and specialized.

Regardless, I'll talk about a few of these issues just in case you are curious what my opinion is. In general, my answer is that the smaller a community you live in, the fewer "cultural" issues there are because there's more consensus and homogeneity. Live and act in a smaller community and create some distance in your life!

a. Parenting

In a great number of cases, it's not the government's duty to interfere in how families raise their children. That has to be up to the community around them to influence them. But I can still give my opinions about what is desirable and what is not. The way a family treats their child conditions the way that child views the world, so it is an incredibly important thing for any country. Stable, loving, healthy families create stable, loving, healthy communities. I obviously can't summarize how to raise a child in just a few paragraphs. But I will talk about a few things in particular that I see as important. I don't have children, so you should keep that in mind when I speak. A lot of people will write off my opinion right away because of that, and I can't really blame them to be honest. But I still feel pretty passionately about some of them.

Parents should be emotionally invested in their child's life and wellbeing. That goes without saying. But I think that children deserve to have a lot of independence growing up too. It's one of the great tragedies of modern urbanization in crime-ridden cities with atrocious public infrastructure that so many children in the United States don't have the chance to walk to school alone, to take the bus and train alone, or even to go get lost in the woods near their house for a while anymore. This independence should go across the board too. My parents were very permissive when I grew up. They let me watch R-rated movies when I was still 11 or 12, but that was because they had raised me to be mature, to understand things, and were open if I had questions. They also let me use the internet relatively unsupervised for the same reason. Of course, the internet has changed a lot since I was a kid. That said, I think that it is good to encourage children to spend a lot of time in nature, drawing pictures, playing with toys, and developing their imagination, patience, attention-span, etc. before you give them an ADD machine like a computer. I straight up don't think kids should have smartphones until they are at least 16. Actually, nobody should have smartphones in my opinion, kek... but in the end none of this should be enacted by law, just cultural norms.

I can't say what the correct method of discipline should be when a child does something unacceptable. Yell at them? Lecture in a more stern, but collected manner and explain your disappointment clearly? Not allow them to use the computer for a week? I can't say and I think it would depend. I do think that corporal punishment, however, is outdated and shouldn't be brought back. I don't know if spanking for example should be a punishable offense by the law the way hitting your kid in the face would be, but I highly discourage it.

b. Schooling

Schools can probably have a lot less homework and other busywork, although I certainly think that the kinds of review that homework exists for is necessary. Testing and a high degree of standardization about what kids learn also still obviously needs to exist, but schools should still teach in a way that is creative, participatory, and open-ended. Difficult balance, I know.

Things like school sports teams and other club activities are very good. I also like the idea of morning assemblies and students singing their school song together in the morning. However, this should never foster a spirit of chauvinism and rivalry with other schools, at least more than a playful rivalry. Schools should collaborate and be friends.

After puberty, I think that boys' and girls' schools are very good and should be more normalized, but coed schools shouldn't be illegal or anything. I like the idea of separating certain classes by sex even at coed schools. Only some subjects? All subjects and only allow them to spend break time/lunch time/PE together? I don't know. Boys and girls mature very differently and I think both of their performances would improve if they didn't have to take every class together.

High schools should not have compulsory attendance.

Middle schools and high schools should have uniforms.

All children from first grade onward should clean their own schools like they do in Japan.

I think homeschooling should be legal, but of course the ideal would be to make schools good enough that no one feels the need to. I was homeschooled for elementary and middle school and there are a lot of things about it that I am thankful for, but a lot of things that I think I missed out on because of it too.

c. Religion

I like the idea of spirituality permeating every aspect of society, but there's a reason I use the word SPIRITUALITY and not RELIGION. I think children lose a lot by not going to something like a church at least once a week where they can get in touch with something higher than themselves. But it shouldn't be the way the old church was: a place where at best you slouch in your seat waiting for the boring old man to finish rambling and at worse where you get threatened with burning in hell for two hours. There can be ways to bring children up into these places that make them much more inviting. As always, Japanese Shintou is the best example. A neighborhood shrine devoted to local kami that draws everyone together and puts them into touch with what is important. Ideally it would also be connected to something like a community garden or some kind of work to help the area around you. And if you are a 100% materialist atheist, you could still have something like this where you discuss philosophy, learn about science, or something like that I suppose. Anything to get in touch with something higher than yourself and be back in touch with what really matters for a while.

That said, I support complete secularism in schools and in government. Spirituality should never be cheapened by being tied to an institution outside of its own.

Child circumcision should be illegal.

d. Feminism

Feminism is an outdated movement that we don't need anymore. All the legal blocks stopping women are pretty much gone in modern countries, so there's nothing more to talk about here than societal attitudes, and the ones that still remain seem so archaic that they are barely worth addressing. Feminism had noble goals in the 19th century when it more or less picked up steam all the way to the early 1970s or so. This was the high point when it was a hippie movement about free love and anti-capitalism. Ever since the 1980s or so, the mainstream of feminism in the western world has been misguided, destructive, oppressive, and antithetical to its original goals. Of course feminism is one of those words like fascism, racism, etc. these days. It's used for so many different things that nobody knows what it means anymore.

In this era of corporate girl-boss feminism, which has more or less continued to the present, all the rhetoric becomes about women "catching up to" men and even "outdoing" them. It becomes a "fight" to "prove" that you can do anything any man can do! It all becomes full of aggression, assertiveness, competition, and, quite frankly, just plain bitchiness. All the talk is about wages and parity in jobs and this kind of stuff that sums up the value of life in terms of money. In other words, it makes women act like men. And not even like good men. It makes them act like men who are assholes. This has been a disaster, and ultimately it benefits no one but large corporations who now have two sexes to enslave into a life of climbing the corporate ladder and spending time away from their loved ones. And that's about where we are now. There's an old feminist quote that "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Well, nowadays men and women have internalized that message to the point that they don't even see the need to couple together anymore.

Don't get me wrong, when I say that it's low to be so focused on money, I'm not ignorant of the problems that existed in, say, the 1950s, where a woman would often have no choice but to stay in an abusive relationship because only the man of the house could work. But the just way to end this wouldn't have been to convince women to work more, it would have been to fix an unjust society that allows people to have power over others by their income. Therefore my answer isn't that we need to go back to some 1950s model where women have no independence and men have all the ability to decide and lead. The problem is that now both sexes have too much independence. We need to both lose our independence and become more enmeshed and vulnerable and needy for each other. I also think a lot of the problem is that traditionally feminine work of child-rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc. is not respected by or compensated for by society at large even though it is the foundation of everything else. Women have had at least one great advantage throughout history in that they have largely been able to work on things that actually matter to their daily lives like their homes, their goods, and, especially, their families. Compare this to men who have, historically and for the most part, been enslaved by capitalism and worked to death for a king, for a colonist, or for a CEO.

That is why, to me, the true way to continue with the problems pointed out by feminism would have been to move towards degrowth, anti-work, communal living, natural lifestyles, and sexual liberation. Instead, the mainstream of feminism has promoted neoliberalism, wage-slavery, atomization, urbanization, and puritanism (you can mostly thank a miserable limey cunt named Laura Mulvey for that last one). Men's work should become more like women's: local, private, personally motivated, and therefore more meaningful and less alienating. The answer shouldn't be to "free" women to go become corporate slaves. It should be to bring men away from their jobs and back into the domestic sphere. It should be to see domestic duties as the honorable bedrocks of society that they are. Part of this was, sure, to end the ideal of the housewife as being a vacant, empty, brainless maid (this happened in the 1960s btw, anyone who tries to tell you that it's still alive is living in the past). But the idea that the way to exercise your intelligence is to join a corporation and spend time away from your loved ones is poison for society. Smart, resourceful, intelligent, genius people need to be parents as well. How else will they impart their brilliance onto their children? Instead, feminists have fought for a world where they are now enslaved into the same system as men. Women in the 1950s may have regretted many things about their lives, but rarely would one of them have been not spending enough time with their loved ones.

e. Sex

The longest romantic relationship I ever had was about six months and we were only really physically intimate only once or twice. It goes without saying that I don't have a lot of experience. But I do feel pretty passionate about a few things. Most societies have an unhealthy and unnatural relation to sex. Japan probably has the best in the world, but even they are starting to resemble idiotic western countries. Japan has a very unique, but I think healthy, mix of extreme openness and acceptance of sex on the one hand and extreme prudence and restraint about expression of this on the other. That means that they think sex and sexual attraction is a great, holy thing and are very accepting of seeing it in art and media. They want to see it expressed and reflected everywhere. That means loving pornography, prostitution, and art that expresses the beauty and fun of the human sex drive. However, when it comes to the actual ACT of sex, they are prudent and careful and don't massively sleep around with each other. At least when they do, they are very quiet about it. Public displays of affection are deeply frowned upon. "Open relationships" are unheard of. Well, this is how it was at one point at least. Like everything great about Japan, idiotic westerners try to destroy it.

So much for attitudes. When it comes to actual laws, the only laws regulating sex and sexuality should be laws against sex with 3-D, real life, living minors and animals and the creation, sale, and purchase of 3-D, real-life pornography that depicts that. Lolicon and child sex dolls should be 100% legal and socially accepted.

Incest leads to some pretty bad results and should be discouraged. But I think it should be legal.

Prostitution should be legal and regulated with mandatory STD testing.

Abortion should be legal all the way into the third trimester, and should be paid for by public healthcare. Contraceptives should also be freely available and easily accessible.

While I like and support the norm of marriage being between two monogamous people, I think that polygamous marriages should be legal. Divorce should be an option, but obviously an ideal society would result in as few cases of it as possible.

I think that for countries like Japan and South Korea with rapidly plummeting birth rates, the government should create subsidized programs to try to find romantic partners for lonely people. Yes, government-mandated GFs but not ironically. Except it should be a voluntary program to sign up for and not force anyone into anything.

In the meantime, I think that countries with growthrates that are way too huge like Pakistan and India should have Chinese-style one-or-two-child policies. Of course, these can lead to all kinds of problems if improperly implemented. But someone has to slow down the rate of children being born in those places. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists think the highest good is for each family to add 10 more carbon-shitters to an already overpopulated earth.

f. LGBT

I don't like the term "LGBT." It lumps together transgenderism with minority sexual orientations, which are two completely different things that can't be talked about in the same broad strokes. So I want to break the two apart and treat them differently.

Being homosexual (attracted to the same sex) is an abnormality and a disorder, but there's no shame in that. Humans are naturally geared toward reproduction, so I see being gay as an evolutionary disadvantage, just like being born with legs that don't work would be. However, we don't need to hate people with evolutionary defects. In fact, because of how overpopulated the earth is today, being gay is probably helpful in countries that will become overly crowded in the upcoming decades. Unfortunately, most of those countries are places like India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, etc. which are not well known for acceptance of homosexuality.

Let me distinguish very clearly: I really dislike the "LGBT" culture of the US and other countries where it has expanded its influence. That is not the same thing as hating gay people. I hate the mincing, lisping, flaming, San Francisco "pride" culture. It repulses me. But I know that not all gay people act like that or like that kind of culture. It's just like not all black people like the gangsta rap culture, but still get unfairly stereotyped by it. The LGBT movement is more often than not oppressive and promotes censorship of speech and expression. I am anti-LGBT movement but have no problem with gay people. As long as they aren't the gross weirdos that often get chosen by the media as representative of gay people.

Marriage is a religious/spiritual ceremony (and not only a Christian one, it has existed in many societies). I think we should remove all the advantages conferred on married couples by the state. If that was done, I don't know why any gay couple would feel the need to be married instead of simply being recognized in a civil union. Of course, if they want a ceremony of some kind in a church or wherever, they should be allowed to, but the churches shouldn't be forced to. They should have the choice to officiate the ceremony or not. Gay couples should be able to adopt. However, it is important for a child to grow up in the close company of good role models of both sexes. I think it should be a requisite that the child will be close to an aunt, uncle, good family friend, etc. of the gay couple which is the opposite sex. Adoption standards are already very strict anyway, so I think this is feasible.

As for transgenderism, this is a more complex topic. I'll be honest: there's a lot of stuff about it I just don't know and am not decided about. My opinion has shifted a lot and could continue to shift. Right now here is where I stand: Gender dysphoria is a mental illness and seems to have existed for a very long time. There are people who seem to want to change their sex even in countries like Russia and Turkey where doing so would put their lives in danger, so I don't think you can chock it up entirely to social contagion from left-wingers. I haven't, however, seen good evidence for the idea of people being able to experience dysphoria of being "non-binary." I don't think it's a real thing, to be frank. But dysphoria for wanting to be the opposite gender seems well-evidenced. People who are transgender should be able to get HRT etc. after the age of 18.

However, transgenderism has the same problem as LGBT, but even worse. I have a friend who is a trans-woman and she is amazing, one of my favorite people. But transgender people like her who just want to live their lives and who aren't in lockstep with the dominant ideology have their lives made very difficult by the a group of oppressors who want to control and restrict other peoples' speech. I will call this movement the Trans Movement with a capital T to distinguish it. I believe that, yes, gender is a social construct. But the idea of forcing people to recognize people as the other gender, forcing them to use certain pronouns, etc. is an authoritarian and shitty thing to do. If it is a social construct, it has to be decided on in a natural way by the entire society, not by having everyone bow to one person's decision. This is partly an unfortunate side effect of English having gendered pronouns. In a language like Japanese, you almost never have to identify someone by a pronoun that makes a statement over whether they are a man or a woman, so you can just kind of "agree to disagree" and not have to keep "taking a stance" whenever you speak about the person. I have seen some transgender people who pass so well that it's just more natural to use the pronoun which is the opposite of their birth-sex. These people have really "become" the opposite gender to me. But a lot of them simply don't. And I can't lie about that. Instead, I just use the pronoun they/them instead in that case, because it doesn't feel like I'm lying about my feelings and it usually satisfies everyone.

I also think that there is a big element of social contagion in transgenderism which is corrosive. Transgenderism isn't a big deal because so few people really have it. But too many people just think they do. I will start with some personal stories. When I was a kid, I hated being a man because I had ingested too much horrible feminazi propaganda that men are all oppressive and stupid and brutish. I didn't like sports and roughhousing and other stereotypically "male" things. I also liked Sanrio characters and other cute things like that and felt sad that they were only acceptable for girls to like. I was very much still a male, but I think I could have been warped into thinking that it meant I was really a girl on the inside. I know this because I experienced a few other things like that as a kid. When I found out about the history of slavery and oppression of black people in my country, I wanted and begged my parents to let me receive a surgery to make my skin black so I could experience their pain as a way to pay back for what my ancestors did. This is, of course, a stupid idea. But I really wanted to do it back then. If my parents listened to me, it would have been awful.

I understand that ideally, you don't just automatically let a kid transition if they come out as trans or whatever. You take them to therapy and they analyze if it's really rooted in an incurable mental illness or if it's a fleeting desire caused by a mistaken sense of self-loathing in their brain like me. But I don't trust the American medical industry which is desperate to hook anyone on medicine to sap cash away from them. I would like to have a much better system of transgender specialist therapists, but I am still skeptical of many at the moment. Of course, a lot of this means studying transgenderism and not running away from it. But honest research of things like detransitioners is made difficult these days by the oppressive Trans Movement which tries to obscure any politically inconvenient truths from being discovered.

This is made even more difficult because a lot of kids are confused today and don't understand that gender norms aren't the same thing as a gender identity. You can like cute and girly things like I did and still be a boy. You can like boy things and still be a girl. Nowadays, tons of kids think they are trans when they just like something a bit different from the norm. And it has become a way to rebel and be cool, which is corrosive. Back in the day it was being goth or emo, now you stick out and be cool by saying you're "non-binary" (i.e. a girl who has short hair and wears t-shirts and jeans). This is natural for teenagers to do, even with something like sexual identity that is more serious than being goth or emo. For example, I remember tons of teenage girls in high school who claimed to be "bi" in order to look cool or special. But we have to be able to see this as them being stupid kids going through a phase, which the Trans Movement doesn't want us to.

Transgender people should not compete in the sports league of the gender they want to transition into. It will destroy womens' sports.

All the above said, however, people give transgender stuff way too much attention in the modern news cycle and political world. There are thousands of more important things to focus on.

g. Firearms

Personally, I don't like guns or give a shit even if they are totally illegal. But that isn't enough to make an informed political opinion. The USA has a very special and unique relation to firearms when it comes to law and politics that makes this particular "cultural" issue more of a serious thing than it would be in many other countries. I do understand that there are good reasons to want to own private firearms. First and foremost, for defense of yourself and property against criminals. This is important in rural areas where the police might be very far away. And of course, if you do live out in the wild, you might need them to scare away bears or other wild animals. A gun should be thought of more like a tool than anything, like a shovel. It's one that can do an extraordinary amount of damage and thus requires a lot of responsibility to wield, but I think we can have a healthier view of them if we remove some of the mystique.

The ideology behind gun ownership being something added to the American constitution as a "check" on government tyranny is largely hagiographic. The United States was founded as a wild frontier country and, as difficult to admit as it is, fights against other colonial European powers, the slaughter of natives, and the suppression of slave uprisings was part and parcel of maintaining stability in its early days. The second amendment makes perfect sense in this context. With the amount of gun crime that the United States experiences, I support a greater restriction of gun access. Would it put us more at risk from tyranny from the government? Perhaps, but I think the chance of tyranny from mentally ill citizens that can easily get access to assault rifles is more of a concern. I'm also not convinced that you even need guns to be able to end government tyranny. Some of the greatest advances of the 20th century were achieved through nonviolent resistance. Pacifism takes way more balls than violence.

The ideal society would be like Japan, where there is so much trust and public safety that no citizen even needs guns in the first place. But I doubt a country as large and already overflowing with guns as the United States could get there any time soon. Instead, I would think something like requiring permits for all gun owners like in Europe or at least more regulation for private sales so that fewer people with mental issues and criminal records get around background checks would be a good step in the right direction.

h. Vices

Sex work is not a vice. That is puritanical, Abrahamic, feminazi brainwashing that still poisons western societies.

A lot of drug advocates will say that it's hypocritical to allow alcohol and cigarettes to be legal but not other relatively benign drugs like cannabis. I don't really have an argument against that. All I can say is that personally, I don't like cannabis and think that potheads are complete losers. That isn't a reason to pass any law or not, but it's a reason that I don't really mind cannabis being illegal. Societies should heavily socially enforce against chronic abuse and misuse of drugs, but I think that it should generally be on the basis of social norms instead of laws, the way we do with alcoholism.

We should be able to drink alcohol in public areas as long as we are not so drunk that we are bothersome and causing trouble.

Dangerous drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. should remain strictly illegal. Most psychedelics should not be illegal. I think obtaining something like a permit or license to use psychedelics would be good to have. I think that psychedelics have a long history in religious ceremonies and that they should be seen socially as a spiritual substance, not just something for casual fun. But that's a question of cultural attitudes, not law.

Gambling should be legal but all forms of it should be totally disrespected and socially condemned. Especially gachashit!

i. Race

The idea of nature vs. nurture as a binary is outdated and should be abandoned. Both are part of how someone develops. A good thing to do to get an idea of how the two interact is to look at North and South Korean men and compare them. North Koreans are on average 3-8 cm shorter than South Koreans due to living in a much more destitute country and being more malnourished. Now, is this "genetic?" Sure. But genetics aren't just a preordained fate that's written in the stars. Genetics are shaped by how we are brought up, and can change very quickly. In the case of Korea, this happened in less than 100 years. But the point stands that human beings are not born as a tabula rasa. That is a somewhat uncomfortable fact, because a lot of the foundations of liberalism assumed that they were. But as I will show, it doesn't have to lead to anything bad.

The idea of "race realism" is very correct, but it usually stops too short. Any population of people will be distinct and have measurable differences. But where we put the boundaries on these and call them a "race" is conventional. You could call all people from the European continent "white," but really there are tons of "races" within that large, vague grouping of skin colors. Amerimutts don't realize it as clearly, but there are subtle differences in the appearance of people from France, Norway, Russia, Britain, etc. The same goes for any population, but it's just a lack of familiarity which makes people lump them together. I've spent enough time in Japan to recognize what Japanese people really look like and they look completely different from Koreans and Chinese to me now. The idea of an "Asian" race makes no sense to me now. So yes, there are "races" of people. But there are an innumerable number of them, not just "black," "white," etc.

We all know some of the more superficial things that are inheritable and that no one would deny like skin color. I was really kind of uncomfortably forced to recognize a lot of these things when I lived in Japan: kids would be fascinated by and want to touch my arm hair, I had to go to a doctor because they didn't have medicine that worked on my wet earwax, and got complaints about my body odor because their deodorant was too weak for me. These are the kinds of things that are, however, pretty unimportant in the long run. The real controversy gets into whether things like people's behavior, temperament, and intelligence are also governed by the same laws. In my opinion, they probably are to a some degree, but a truly good society would have adequate room to accept any variations born from these. Those variations are probably nothing that the "nurture" side of the equation can't smooth out enough to make different races compatible in terms of living together. No race should be discriminated against or hated. Nor should we assume anything automatically and stereotype someone by their race, for example that because someone is black they'll have good rhythm. That is unjust because there are exceptions to every rule.

Nothing is wrong with race-mixing. But I do believe that soft, benevolent, and voluntary forms of social eugenics can be justified. If some races are near extinction, I have no problem with social movements encouraging them to save their genetic code for the countries they are native to. For example, countries with races whose birthrates are sharply declining like Japan could do well to invest in huge projects of preserving the sperm of their men and eggs of their women so that more "pure" Japanese can be recreated in case their country is completely replaced by foreign genes. And I think that Japanese couples who reproduce with each other and create pure Japanese children should be given more incentives like tax credits than ones who reproduce with foreigners. Of course, none of that means we should hate the ones who reproduce with foreigners! Just in the same way that we don't hate people who don't donate their organs upon death, but appreciate that it is a good and noble thing to do. And foreigners should be allowed to live there as long as they remain less than 50% of the population. Note that I only think something like this form of eugenics is justified if the native population of a country or community has a declining birthrate. And I do mean "native" very strongly, not just whoever happens to be the majority in the country or region right now. In the Americas, for example, this kind of program would only be possible to implement for native tribes, not descendents of colonists. In Xinjiang and Tibet, it would only be possible to implement for Uyghurs and Tibetans. Obviously, the feasibility of something like that with the way the USA and tons of other post-colonial states are is almost completely unrealistic. But I think it would be ideal. None of it is born from the idea that one race is inherently superior to the other. It is born from a desire to preserve global human diversity for the sake of study and curiosity, the way we would other animal species.

Affirmative action and diversity quotas should not exist. If there is a problem with inequity in positions, it has to be solved in other ways. For example, if very few black people are getting into the most elite universities, the problem should be fixed by improving their earlier education if their grades are worse or by improving attitudes of prejudice if the reason is believed to be racist admission practices.

The "JQ" has very little empirical evidence, and what is there is commonly misunderstood. What we can be sure of is that there is a disproportionately high number of Jews in the wealthier sectors of most western societies. This is not because of a secret conspiracy. Most of the reason goes back as far as the Middle Ages. Collecting interest on loans used to be considered sinful in the Christian world. You can read a lot of venom spewed about it in the section of Dante's Inferno about "usurers." For that reason, opportunistic rulers usually allowed Jews to fill in to run banks and otherwise collect interest. This led to a much greater amount of personal wealth and economic literacy in the Jewish populations of Europe over many centuries. It's not a surprise that so many Jews have come to dominate the fields of academics, arts, and sciences. Economically privileged backgrounds allow that kind of education more easily. Of course, fundamentalist Judaism is as much of a destructive ideology as fundamentalist Christianity or Islam. But in terms of the actual amount of harm it causes to society, it is far less, because there are far fewer Jews than Christians or Muslims and they tend to be more secular. The great exception to this is the ideology of Zionism and the state of Israel, but this is not supported by all ethnic Jews and not all citizens of Israel. Fuck the Anti-Defamation League though. They are censorious fucktards. And there are plenty of ethnic Jews who agree with me. I had based Jewish friends growing up who were always the first to make Holocaust jokes.

...Whew! Okay, that should suffice for all political talk on this site. Now let's talk about anime, manga, and other fun stuff for a breath of fresh air.

Back to the essays section.