Synthetic Naturalism

Seeing Red.

Around here, Socialism is a dirty word, Red had better be associated with Republicans, Jesus Christ was an American, and Obama is a Marxist.

Unfortunately, I do not see things this way. Politically speaking, I am a Socialist. I am a Red. I agree with a lot of what Marx, Engles, Mao, Che, and Rousseau had to say. That being said, I am not a propaganda-spewing sleeper agent that is eagerly awaiting the uprising of the Proletariat, but I am a Red nonetheless.

Here is why.

The world is an unfair place. There are a lot of bad people. Humans, as a whole, are xenophobic, fearful, paranoid, greedy, and unforgiving animals. The strong always come out on top, and the weak are ground to dust. A lot of bad things happen to a lot of good people for no particular reason. Nice guys finish last. Life is too short, and there is no heaven awaiting the humble and meek. We are “…God’s unwanted children”, we are “…Not beautiful or unique snowflakes” and we “…Are all part of the same compost heap.” (Tyler Durden)

This is not the worst thing that can happen.

There are those in this world who are uncountably superior to others. This is not a division of class, race, religion, or nation. Put simply, some will always be stronger, smarter, better leaders, prettier, et cetera (fortunately, they are rarely all of these at once). We all have strengths, and some exceed more than others. Through a combination of luck and skill, people will inevitably rise to the top. These people, these Alpha wolves of the pack, will dictate the hearts, minds, fates, or well-being of the masses in some way. Unlike the idea, as the Right-Wing would say, that these people are rightful in their positions, I am of a different opinion. It is quite an accomplishment to be a Lord of Men, but it is quite another to be a Savior, Protector, Healer, or Leader of Men.

Leadership leads only because the lead allow them to. Those in power are only in power because the masses agree that they are. As such, there is no excuse to not use this power to aid the masses, to raise the least common denominator a little.

Real power lies not in the holders of Capital, not with the Bourgeois, not with those at the top. The real power lies in the People, in the Worker, in the Laborer. Throughout history, farmers and common workers have been used and abused. Yet, every civilization depends on these men and women. They are the salt of the Earth, and they shall inherit it.

As such, it is the duty of those in power to provide for the masses. Do not demonize them, claiming that they are only poor because of immorality or laziness. This is not the case. Not everyone can be at the top, and your system specifically hinders them from reaching it. To allow them to suffer is a grievous crime against humanity. Your system does not work. It is not a failure, but it is not a success. The Right-Wing is simply an acceptance of the status-quo, and the status-quo is not what it should be.

And, if the lower-half of society is risen up, so is the upper-half. Their success is your success. Think about it.

I’ll go into this more later.

Homogenization in Liberation Movements.

Today we have yet another dispatch from my Political Ideologies class. Fortunately, this is not a rant. 

In the discussion about Liberation Movements the issue of homogenization came up. If you believe yourself to be a part of an oppressed group of people, be you Black, Latino, Gay, a Feminist, or any other group, you must ask yourself this question: is it better to be more mainstream or to abandon that and embrace your own unique culture? To use the example of Black Liberation, do you try to be more “white” or do you embrace your own Black culture? For women, do you embrace traditionally feminine roles and/or your own sexuality, or do you reject the norm?

Its a fair question. But, as usual, I take the middle road on this issue. 

On the one hand, embracing the unique aspects of your group is the best way to empower the group and build a community. From that community and empowerment, you can begin a movement. Allowing people to embrace their non-mainstream (which arguably is white, male, and protestant) culture can be extremely powerful and is quite necessary for getting a group-consciousness in the first place. Take, for example, atheists (or agnostics, non-believers, et cetera). Atheists and agnostics make up a large part of the population, but they are unrepresented to a large degree. Atheists are only beginning to embrace their own culture (see the Skeptic movement). Until then, they will be divided and unrepresented.

Yet, if you embrace your own culture you run the risk of becoming a stereotype and spreading ignorance. You may undermine your own culture. 

Being more mainstream may not have the same empowerment, but it will get you taken seriously. People were far more willing to listen to Dr King than they were to Huey Newton. I am a fan of both, but I recognize that separating yourself from the mainstream runs the risk of alienating yourself. The sad fact is, you have to find acceptance within the mainstream if you are going to get anywhere. Notice, for example, how separatist movements have never gotten anywhere.

Its a fine line, a tight-rope, that you have to walk. Would you rather be recognized and accepted at the risk of losing your unique identity, or would you rather embrace that uniqueness while running the risk of alienation and ignorance? 

I believe that both must be done, but with care. To demonstrate this, I’ll run with the previous atheist example a bit:

I’m an atheist. A nonbeliever. I come from a Mormon household. When I first “converted”, I was all sorts of fire and brimstone (of the rational, materialist variety of course). I openly questioned any questionable thing I saw at church. I made a lot of people angry. I kind of liked it, to be honest. After a while, though, I realized how fruitless my efforts were. My father (a strong believer, and an excellent example to believers of any faith) explained to me very patiently that I’ll gather more flies with honey than with vinegar. He was right. When I look around at politics today, everyone seems to be shouting at each other. No one is listening. I tried to apply his advice and found that sitting down and actually listening to the other side meant they actually listened to me too. I learned a lot. I think I taught a lot, too. I now realize that religion (when applied in the right way) can be a powerful force for change. I may not agree with religion in a lot of ways, but I respect the core ideals.

Ok, enough of making myself look good. I’ll use another example:

Some one very close to me is beginning to realize that she is a feminist. She loves it (and she should). Yet, she is far from the modern stereotype of a feminist. (I realize that this stereotype is far from the truth, but I’ll get into that in a later post about feminism. However, this view is unfortunately what people think of when they see a feminist) She is not “butch” or a man-hater. She has a woman’s figure and is beautiful. She can get a date. Hell, she could get anyone she wanted. She loves to cook and care for people. She enjoys and embraces her sexuality, but dislikes pornography and its effects on our society. Yet, she is quite passionate about her views and fighting against patriarchy while still remaining approachable, logical, and pragmatic. 

To put it shortly: don’t ever forget your culture, what makes you unique, but make sure you are approachable. Yes, that may mean quieting things down, but in the end you will change more minds by talking with them than arguing at them. If you attack the views of others, they will instantly become defensive and unwilling to listen. Creating divides only breeds hate. Yet, abandoning your culture is giving up. Celebrate your history, your culture, but always be inclusive. 

Have confidence in your culture. You don’t need to wave it in the faces of others. Let it simply be. Let it speak for itself. If it is right, it will not need to prove anything.

Stay classy, little revolutionaries, but don’t ever let that cause you to forget what you are fighting for. 

Why hate the gays?

Why is it that our societies hate the gays? 

It makes no sense to me. I understand the religious angle, but even that one seems to be bullshit to me. If God’s a perfect being, won’t He love them as much as the straight ones? Also, the concept of Hell is completely ridiculous and not at all compatible with one of a perfect, loving god.

Eternal torture for everything from picking the wrong religion (or no religion at all) to murder? Not even murder is deserving of that. Nothing is. It makes Hitler and his concentration camps look like a child throwing a tantrum and messing up his or her room. It’s never made sense to me. Honestly, it’s why if I ever did believe in God, that I’d either be a Mormon again or a Buddhist. The latter has no Hell that I know of and the former also lacks one. The worst they have is more like exile than eternal torture and only the ones who can’t be saved go there. That means those who receive a full knowledge of the plan and still reject it.

But anyways. Why hate gays because God says no? If they’re going to receive eternal torment (according to most people) or less of a good deal (according to Mormons) then why make their earthly lives worse or speed their way onto their punishment/lack of a reward? If anything, you should think of these people like misguided kids who’re getting themselves into more trouble than they know. You should love them. Not literally, of course. Jebus says no and you might catch their gay.

Obviously, I agree with none of this shit. I’m an atheist. I think they deserve the same treatment as anyone else, so in other words treat them well until they give you specific reason not to. Even that’s on a case-by-case basis, anyways. Gays as a whole? I see no problem with it.

And so what if it is a choice? It’s not a bad choice. It’s like someone preferring blondes over brunettes or something. Love is love, even if it has no biological basis. I, for one, don’t think that it’s a choice. Who wakes up one day and says, “Ok, I want to be persecuted, mistrusted, a target for bashing, and hated”?

No one does. Why would they? People do self harm, yes, but this is something else entirely. 

I see no reason to dislike, hate, or mistrust them. 

Now let’s say that you have a reason that attempts to be practical, like that you think it spreads AIDS? Again, you should care for these people. And they can use protection. But gay people don’t have sex with straight people, so your problem may just take care of itself, right?

Religion, issues that claim to be practical, I feel like I’m missing some. I still don’t understand it. Even with gays not being allowed to adopt because of the fear that not having a parent of both genders will damage the child, what about single parents? With gay couples, at least, one is typically the masculine one and one is typically the feminine one. 

Again, I see no reason to hate them. Again, I don’t think that it’s a choice, but even if it is then so what? There are so many things that are worse. I have yet to meet a gay who is also insane, immoral, or something like that. They’re typically good people, or at least they are in the same amounts as heterosexual people. 

I recently found this article on the search for the gay gene. They’ve had no luck so far, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not genetic. Best case scenario? It’s a subculture, belief, behavior, habit, or something like that. Worst case scenario? It’s a mental disorder.

Either way, there’s no reason to hate them. Even if it is a mental disorder, then it has no negative effects on society so it shouldn’t be looked down upon. They’re people, damn it, and they deserve equal treatment. 

Ah, but I’d best get to sleep. This car accident has had me doing therapy three times a week. Fun times tomorrow!

The Genderless Society.

Birth Control and Healthcare.

This morning on my way to therapy, I heard an NPR story over the radio. It was about how Obama’s getting a lot of criticism from the Catholic church because his healthcare bill would require providers to give their clients birth control if they wanted it. Even the Catholic ones (or, rather, the Catholic medical organizations). Birth control is a far cry from abortion, but to the Church it’s all the same, or at least that’s how I understand it. Perhaps I’m wrong. If I am, please kindly leave me an ask. From what I know, they think that sex without children is sinful, even amongst married couples.

Naturally, organizations which promote the rights of women are getting involved and supporting Obama. Now, of course there is and should be freedom of religion. I’m all for that. But there’s also supposed to be a separation of church and state. When I heard about the news from the program which had aired, I thought of these things immediately:

1. The aforementioned separation of Church and State.

2. The fact that not all women use birth control only for sex. Some use it to reduce cramping and such.

3. Wouldn’t it be far cheaper to pay for birth control than to pay for an abortion, adoption services, welfare for mothers driven to poverty, and other costs which are bound to come about if the women are forced to be mothers?

I think that this is a feminist issue, though. They’re trying to make the government regulate what choices women can make about their own bodies. This is the same government which is mainly male, has never had a female president (yet), and so on. 

Now, I can understand them not wanting to promote sexuality, but what they seem to fail to realize is that inevitably some people will not accept their version of right and wrong. I’m not just saying this because I’m sexually active and my girlfriend and I are in no place to raise a child yet, either. I can also understand why Christian religions would want us to control various urges and such, which is everything from sexuality to eating. Moderation in all things, as they say. What I can’t understand, though, is how they want to enforce their limitations on all with an iron fist. Moderation and self control is good, but this is too far. 

Even when the Catholic Church was at the height of its power, people still had sex that wasn’t necessarily done with the intention of having and bearing children from what I understand. 

This reminds me of something which I saw a while back (perhaps on Tumblr). Basically, if teaching abstinence is effective, then the post had jokingly suggested that we use this same logic with other things. Want to stop murder? Teach people to abstain from it. Want to stop rape? Tell them to abstain. Want to end robbery? Abstinence. Drug dealing? Same thing.

Now, of course these things are not at all on the same level (even of “sinfulness”) of having sex for the sheer enjoyment of it (or to show love). I mean only to show that if abstinence works for one kind of “sin”, then why not use the same method with other “sins” (or actions which are most definitely monstrous). 

And what if you’re only having sex within the bonds of marriage, but use birth control to only have children when you want them? My Dad and Step Mother are both Mormon and (as far as I know) have never had sex outside of marriage nor were they ever happy with learning that I have and do, but I know that they use condoms. If they didn’t, I’d have a lot more siblings and they would not be financially stable. I’m glad that they’re responsible. 

I don’t mean this as a bash of Catholics at all. I only mean it to point out that this is a feminist issue, the separation of church and state, and so on. If I have offended, I apologize. 

Just to cite multiple sources…

House Bill 2549 on Mediacoalition.org

The Verge

Gizmodo

The Intel Hub

e-Lobbyist

Dslreports.com

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend,

So then under this bill, Jan Brewer should be arrested for annoying me. I really hope this is trolling. If so, my hat’s off to Arizona.