My current political position.

I used to define myself as a libertarian socialist (I still do in response to questions, if anyone asks me). I do not follow political labels any more, because I’ve come to the conclusion that groupthink is harder to overcome than ideological error, and it seems like all political groups have heavy groupthink attached to them. Bringing up feminism (real feminism, I mean) is a big no-no even in actual leftist circles. Antinatalism and population reduction, surely one of the biggest issues of our time, are usually relegated to the margins (this is changing slightly, and the discussion has started, although barely). There is no way, even in leftist groups, to try to bring up other radical issues without being attacked.

The best I can say is that I am a radical leftist. That, of course, can be misinterpreted. People, especially Americans, seem to think that “leftist” means “liberal.” Extremists of many kinds are called “radicals.” This is unfortunate, but there’s nothing I can do about it.

Nowadays, I prefer to think about ideals. I’ve gotten very much into Iain Banks’ Culture series, which is about a far-future utopian anarchist galactic society governed by super-intelligent AIs. If I had to point to any book which highlights what I believe in, that would probably be it. There’s also The Dispossessed, by Ursula LeGuin, which I’ve been recommending for a long time. These provide an ideal of what could be, and what direction we should be thinking towards.

There are downsides to this. Some people will argue that pointing to far-future utopias demonstrates that those utopias cannot exist right here and right now. While spurious, this argument also shows the need to discuss current-day liberationist structures as well, like self-managed businesses, autonomous communities, freedom schools, and so on. There is no reason, apart from the interests of existing power structures, why we can’t have liberationist structures anywhere.

This position already has a name: fully automated luxury communism (FALC). It is not a widespread position (not yet, anyway), although it’s starting to get some popularity. It is a hyper optimistic position, which may seem to contradict my pessimism. I personally have little to no hope that FALC will ever exist in human societies, mostly because we’re going to exterminate each other before that happens (even if liberationism ever catches on). But I hold to it as an ideal which should inform our political views in the here and now. We all know deep down, even the worst conservatives, that the ideology of the future is not one of exclusion and petty limitations.

People might call me out for not caring about the present. It’s not that I don’t care about the present, but rather that I think people need ideals more than ideas. We are at a time in history where it seems like we have arrived at the horrible end of history, that capitalism has won, that democracy has won, and that we are about to destroy ourselves. Devoid of living alternatives, devoid of ideals, the opposition is reduced to a bunch of whackos trying to stake a claim of being the only true political alternative.

On present time politics, I prefer to concentrate on individual issues, like I do on this blog. Bottom-up politics, if you want, instead of top-down. Really getting into the details of a handful of issues and getting to the truth of it can then become a litmus test: any ideology which does not conform to what I already know is definitely true cannot be right. The reverse, forcing specific positions based on one’s general political views, can lead straight to absurdity, because their opinions are unchecked by good sense or logic, only by one’s internal logic.

Right now, I think the most important issue concerning politics is the issue of population control. And yet this is an issue that is not discussed very much at all. Here I am not talking about antinatalism, but about population ethics and population reduction in general. There is an urgent need to start reducing population worldwide. This is also connected to other issues like feminism (since much of procreation is caused by the exploitation and objectification of women), radical environmentalism (since population control is overwhelmingly the most efficient and only permanent way of reducing human impact on the environment), childism (since population growth is driven by childist arguments), antitheism (since so much procreation, and opposition to abortion, is driven by religion), antinatalism (obviously), and so on.

In terms of social organization, there are so many different problems and issues with their own importance that it’s hard for me to just name one. An old school leftist would probably point to the lack of class awareness as the core problem. Again, I think the lack of ideals has a lot to do with it.

A Response to VegAnn (Antinatalism, Adoption, Altruism)

Most of the victims in the War on Opiates are innocent people who suffer.

Fighting opiates is creating tremendous amounts of suffering every day, and patients can do nothing about it because they are treated like drug addicts. And yet no one gives a shit about these real victims. Kaitlyn Brennan speaks truth. FUCK YOU if you support the War on Opiates. Honestly.

Law makers, doctors, and advocates everywhere consider this “war” to be two sided. It is depicted as the addicts against everyone else, but this is not the whole side of the story. Behind the fight against these addictive medications there is a girl sitting at home barely holding it together. This is a girl who is sitting in a neck brace with pain at a 7 barely making it through every day. To her, every day is an uphill battle, and she will have to keep fighting to make it to the top. The only thing keeping her functional is her medication. Without her tramadol she would be sitting on her couch, immobile, with nothing on her mind except pain. This girl is me. The only reason I am capable of sitting here writing this article is because of my pain medication. The truth is that I am not an addict though, I am a chronic pain patient.

Every day I suffer from an array of dislocations and subluxations of all my joints from my fingers to my neck due to a connective tissue disorder called Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. This is a very painful, debilitating condition, but with the help of my phenomenal pain management doctors I have been able to function in life as a normal teenager. I can go out with friends, go to school, and attend football games and school plays. My biggest fear though is losing my medications to new laws. What law makers do not understand about patients on opiates is that we do take them for the high, but our high is different.Our high is those few blissful minutes where our pain has almost completely disappeared.

Recently I have heard heart breaking tales of my friends losing these medications due to new opiate laws being passed along with the new CDC opiate guidelines. Many of my fellow Ehlers Danlos patients are scared to go to the emergency room because they know that the first thing the doctors will do will be take away their medication.

Transcult-speak is really anti-women speak.

Trans nightmare talks about decoding the language of the trans cult. It’s all about men invading women-only spaces.

For “transwomen”, substitute “penis” or “men”. Article titles will read “Men have right to use women’s restrooms”, “Radfems are penis-phobic”, “Women who reject penis need to work through bigotry”, and so on and so forth. Their real motives become clear.

For “boys in girls’ bodies”, substitute “butch girls” or “tomboys”.

For “transgender children,” substitute “gender nonconforming children”.

For “transgender surgery”, substitute “permanent sterilization”.

With this in mind, articles would read “tomboys will become dysphoric and suicidal.” “Gender nonconforming children need permanent sterilization.” “Women need to allow penises into their restrooms and lesbians who won’t have sex with men are transphobic.” In fact, the use of the word “trans” to refer to males obscures the real goal of many transactivists: letting men into women’s spaces. They use the word “trans” because it sounds less controversial than saying “men should be allowed in women’s spaces.”

The inherent paradox in the trans cult.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Above: Unacceptable feelings about gender.

All ideologies have paradoxes and contradictions. More rational ideologies may have relatively subtle paradoxes, which take a great deal of understanding of the principles to grasp. More irrational ideologies may have more obvious contradictions, especially if they advocate a fixed idea, which is necessarily and absolutely true. In my entry on fixed ideas, I identified three main properties:

1. The fixed idea is an absolute, said to be true in all cases, and generally must not be questioned (or cannot be questioned because it has epistemic consequences).

2. The fixed idea is an a priori, and any justification offered for it are obviously ad hoc and after the fact. Either way, it cannot be disproved by observation or experiment, making refutation impossible unless one shakes his belief in the idea to begin with.

3. The efficacy of a fixed idea depends on how many corollaries can be pinned to it, and how varied those corollaries can be.

All religious movements, all totalitarian movements, all totalizing belief systems, have a fixed idea or fixed ideas at their core. Usually that fixed idea is something like “the leader is always right” or “the holy book is always right,” but it is not necessarily of this sort.

The fixed idea in the trans cult is something like this:
An individual’s self-identification as regards to gender is always valid and can never be questioned.

This proposition fulfills all three properties. It is absolute, always true, and must not be questioned. It is a priori, and no justification is even attempted. And the entire trans cult relies on this proposition as its foundation. If gender was seen from the same standpoint as race, culture, or height, then there could be no trans ideology. The entire thing is based on a foundation of personal feelings, a subjective foundation.

The paradox is that this subjective foundation is the basis of an ideology which is very much totalitarian and seeks to invalidate other people’s feelings about gender. Anyone whose feelings about gender differs from theirs, even if they identify as transgender, is labeled a “TERF,” which is basically a slur for any enemy of the cult (like heretic, enemy of mankind, etc). Little children are imposed a gender by trans advocates and put on the fast track to transition (with untested medications and surgeries). Lesbians, whose sexual orientation precludes the “gender as feeling” definition, are treated as enemies because of how they feel (who they are attracted to). Any subjectivity that contradicts theirs is anathema and heresy.

Which leads to the question: why is their subjectivity more valid than ours? The answer is simple: because theirs is unquestionable and absolute, and therefore ours must be wrong (both factually and morally). The trans cult wants to dictate how we see and interact with other people on the basis of gender, by stating that their subjectivity dictates a specific, universal definition of what gender can and cannot be. They claim that gender is, specifically and universally, an identity which exists in our brains. This shows that the fixed idea is really about determining whose subjectivity controls how we all perceive the world.

To be clear, the trans cult does not only want to affirm its own subjectivity about gender, but also viciously attack all others. Like any cult, they must attack their perceived enemies, but this means that they are attacking other people’s rights to feel however they feel.

The trans cult shares another thing in common with traditional religious movements: the repudiation of the body. Traditionally, this has been done by positing a body/soul dichotomy, in which the soul is divine and must be purified in order to be with God, and the body is a dirty, “worldly” thing which is mired in sin. The body must be beaten, disciplined, restrained, pleasures must be reined in, in order to ensure the purity of the soul.

In these modern times, intelligent people don’t believe in souls, so instead we have a body/mind dichotomy, which is what the trans cult is based on. Their view is that the components of the body (i.e. biological sex) are irrelevant and constructed by society, while the feeling in our mind (i.e. “innate gender”) is absolute and unquestionable. They are positing that our mind is somehow disconnected from our body, that the organs, hormones or chromosomes that we have are irrelevant to the one “true” gender which is the one in our minds. The mind can therefore “dictate” gender to the body through the medium of self-mutilations, medications, surgeries, and so on. The healthy body must be subverted, butchered, for the sake of the mind, which contains the idealized gender.

This of course brings the important question, which is sometimes asked and prefigures the paradox I discussed above: if the idealized gender is only in the mind, then why change the body at all? Or to put this in more general terms, why not just tend to the soul and leave the body alone?

Traditionally, the Christian answer has been that suffering cleanses your soul. The answer from the trans cult is that those who do not butcher their bodies will kill themselves. This is not shown by the data, but let’s ignore that. The deeper question here is, where does this existential despair come from? If we presuppose that the body/mind dichotomy proposed by the cult is correct, then it makes no logical sense; if the gender in the mind has no connection at all to the body, then why should the state of the body compel the mind to despair?

The answer, in practice, is that (barring people who actually suffer from some kind of body dysmorphia) the suffering is entirely caused by the belief that they are the “wrong gender.” But who taught them this belief? The trans cult! Like all religions, the trans cult sells you on a sin or defect, which you must then saved from. To convince people that they have a terrible defect which can be resolved by belief in one’s religion is the oldest scam trick in the book.

Nowadays, the trans cult is tilting its spear at basic biology and claims that biological sex is a fantasy. They also completely reject transsexualism. Both these things are understandable from the standpoint of the body/mind dichotomy: were they to acknowledge any importance or relevance to the body or biological sex at all, their entire edifice would crumble. In order for this to work, it must place gender solely in the mind, in the person’s subjectivity, because such a subjectivity cannot be scientifically examined. Much like God hiding in the clouds, then out in space, then in another dimension, gender must be hidden in the places where science can’t reach. The only viable religion is an unfalsifiable religion. But unfalsifiable beliefs are ultimately not meaningful: if I can’t see or measure for myself what facts of reality a statement refers to, then I can’t understand its meaning, no matter what I imagine in my head. I do not dispute that people claim to have a gender in their head, but I have no way to observe it, or test that claim. It is therefore no more reliable than the statement that God popped the universe from nothing by saying a word.

Doug Stanhope – Jesus Never Made You Laugh

Self-interest is too vague a term to mean anything.

In this entry, Ian Welsh discusses common notions of “self-interest” and why they don’t add up.

People have many reasons for doing what they do. Self-interest, if it is so nebulous a concept as to mean “whatever you do is in your self-interest” is actually so nebulous as to have no explanatory power.

If you want to get people to do something due to fear, say so: “We’ll scare them into doing it.”

If you want them to do it due to patriotism, say that. If you intend to coerce them, say that: “If they don’t, we’ll throw them in jail.” If you want them to do it because it’s the kind thing to do, say “We’ll appeal to their kindness.”

Now it’s true that there are lots of category errors. You can think you’re appealing to kindness and really be appealing to self-image, or to social ties (“People will despise me if I don’t and like me if I do,” etc.). You can appeal to reciprocity. You can even appeal to pure altruism or pure tribalism.

And you can admit that there may be a mix of motives, including self-interest, without boiling everything down to self-interest…

Our concepts of human nature predict our policies. Self-interest as a foundation stone of human nature means that we create our societies around self-interest. And that does not work.

The logic of “empowerment” taken to its logical conclusion.

if women can be “empowered” by degrees or success, then that means an intelligent, successful woman cannot be victimized. That is the logic Meghan Murphy discusses in this article.

While certainly there are groups of women on this planet who are particularly vulnerable — poor women, women of colour, and disabled women, for example — it is also true that simply being born female ensures you a lifetime of vulnerability, harassment, fear, and discrimination. But today, “cis” has effectively erased that reality — it has erased the systemic nature of women’s oppression, and the fact that we have no choice in the matter. “Cis” says that it is not females who are oppressed under patriarchy, but people (or folx, if you prefer) — and that oppression is based not on what class of people you are born into, but on one’s internal, chosen, or expressed “identity.” So, for example, if you choose to identify as “non-binary” or “transgender,” you can claim women who are just regular old females hold power and privilege over you. I mean, tell that to a girl born into a brothel, or the countless girls who are sexually abused by male family members, or the girls who are subjected to FGM, or trafficked within their communities. Tell that to a woman who must endure pregnancy because she can’t access an abortion or who is thrown in jail for miscarrying. Tell the women murdered by their partners or ex-partners every day, across the globe. Tell the hundreds of Indigenous women who have gone missing or been murdered, on account of male violence. Do tell these girls and women about their “cis” privilege.