The Race Myth

Part one

The interesting thing about the race myth is that the once dominant myth has become the counter myth, but a version of that original myth is now the dominant myth.
Let me explain: I’m racist, right? – But don’t want to be.
I didn’t start out racist but I became that way because society wants me to be, so I have the racism of society.

I remember when I was a child and I continually came up against the concept of race but I couldn’t understand it. I was in effect ‘colourblind’. Don’t worry, society got that out of me quick enough!

Society itself wasn’t always racist either, but it became that way in order to advance the interests of some people. Society then dumped overt racism for a seemingly more benign form that discards the part about superiority, whilst keeping the race talk.
Imagine if scientists discovered that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race. – Well guess what? They already have!
Yet funnily enough even the mainstream media acts as if race a distinct reality behind it.

Consider for example if you got bitten by a dog and there was the question of whether it was a black coloured dog or a white coloured dog that bit you. That wouldn’t seem relevant. It would be like “who cares?” Whereas with humans people think they are going to be able to get some kind of social information out of such a fact.

Infact there are no races but everyone wants to keep on thinking that there are.

“There are races – but they are equal” Is the official myth, whereas the hated counter myth is that there are races, and they aren’t equal! (Notice the subtle difference?)

The thing about the existence of the official myth is that it guarantees the existence of the old myth (now counter myth) of the superiority of your own race.
Think about it in terms of self serving bias as a scientific fact. So, if you identify as being a member of one group, you’re automatically going to see that group as being superior (at least by virtue of your own membership).
You’re going to be automatically sensitive to things that make your own group seem superior and others seem inferior because that’s human nature.

It’s human nature to be racist, once you believe that there are races – Shit, it’s just rooting for your own team! Therefore, since I culturally have that belief, then I am racist.

Don’t worry, you’re probably racist too!

Anyway, even if you manage to defeat your own self serving bias on this issue, and if it was true that there are races but they are equal, then because of some other things we believe, it would only be accidentally true.

Accidentally true?

Say for instance, if you took a group of ‘green’ people and a group of ‘blue’ people, and you gave them some ability testing and determined:

‘That although there is some natural variation between the members of the members of the respective groups, the overall result is that the each group was the same.’

So you have the two races but equal situation all proved and sorted out.

Say if you even had that!

Then you got the highest ability half of people in the green group and you killed them and the lowest ability half of people from the blue group and killed them. Then what you did was you kept the two groups separate and waited for have kids, then you tested the kids.

In that case if there was any genetic influence on the ability levels of the two groups, then it would have to be the case that the green race was ‘superior’ to the blue race.
It would just have to be!
So if there are races but they are equal, then the truth of racism is only a Pol Pot style ethnic cleansing away.
However, if you don’t believe in races then none of that means a damn thing – all you did was kill a bunch of people. (Which is what everyone’s dying to do of course)

Actually, the identified ‘races’ are an arbitrary distinction made on the basis of irrelevant criterion; For instance skin colour. So your ancestors might be from Africa, Southern India or Australia and have absolutely nothing to do with each other at all.

A person from Northern China might be equally ‘white’ in skin colour as one from Europe.

So in that case there’s other parts of the face which people use such as eye shape or nose shape. But did you know that there’s actually more genetic variation within Africa than the whole rest of the world combined? So in other words if you had to categorise three races based on genetics then they would be three African groups, with all Europeans and Asians as an appendage of one of those groups.
Get your head round that!

Of course you could use skin colour and facial features as a kind of rude determiner of cultural origin, although that is becoming less and less relevant with the intermingling of various peoples.
People’s cultural origin is important in terms of how they act. For instance whether they came out of an agrarian or hunter gatherer society will determine how much emphasis is placed on delayed gratification.
What it all might come down to is: Are you predisposed to delay gratification or not?
The reason for this is that people in an agrarian society have to think a year ahead.
If there was any genetic influence upon gratification delay then this it could have quite an effect on perceived differences between ‘races’.

There’s a couple of other considerations: Firstly, if your ancestors were civilization based, then you might be physically less developed than people from other backgrounds and vice-versa .
Whether civilization increases intelligence is debatable, but it certainly allows myth builders to flourish – For instance if you can convince people of a myth they will feed you, as in the case of priests and moral philosophers.


The race myth was debunked many years ago but still persists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11392926/The-white-man-who-pretended-to-be-black.html

Advertisements

Race Myths part II – Race mixing

I have a theory as to the arising of a particular kind of racism that is seen in countries such as America and New Zealand.

Generally, if there is a difference between the economic performance of different ethnic groups it can be attributed to the culture of that group. But if you have a smaller less advanced group that comes into contact with a civilized group, then I would expect the tribal group to be genetically superior because they would have more eugenic processes occurring within it.

But if the larger genetically inferior group had all the power, then a complex psycho-sexual process would take hold whereby the members of the smaller group would attempt to become economically equal to the dominant group, and unless there was a strong taboo in intermarriage this would happen at an individual level.

What this means in effect is that men from the dominant group who could not get a desirable enough woman from within their own social structure could instead take women from the marginalised group. That way the woman could share in the resources of the dominant group. On the other hand even desirable men from the marginalised group would only have access to less desirable women.

If there was a no ‘identifier’ such as skin colour then it wouldn’t matter and the group would be absorbed – such as Irish and East Europeans (who were initially considered inferior) into American society.

However if there was an intergenerational identifier then it may well result in the ghettoization of the marginalised group such as American Blacks.

(The ghettoization would initially be a result of a less successful culture taking hold and using some genetically inheritable marker as a way of determining who should have that culture.)

Basically there would be an infusion of genes from lower status people in the dominant group into marginalised group, which might over the course of time take it from being overall genetically superior to being overall genetically inferior however this would be a result of the inferior genes from the dominant group rather than any inherent defect.

It is worth mentioning that this effect (if it were proven) should not be used to discriminate against any person in particular over and above other factors.

Yet it does seem that simple denial of difference is a little naive. There is the situation where various agencies announce that the races are existent but equal, and yet individual citizens notice increased criminality and/or less economic success amongst marginalised ‘race’ groups. So naturally those persons make judgments based on their own personal experience of races, that in turn increases the marginalisation of those groups.

If there is a genetic influence on at least it should be recognised that the object of discrimination is misplaced it is not the original genetic propensities of the marginalised group that is the problem but the rejected ones of the dominant group.

To give a final illustrative example; the British during the 19th century noticed that the Maori were able to construct military defenses that were more sophisticated than any in Europe at the time. So some argument might be made for Maori superiority. Yet now they are a marginalised group so how did that happen?

This theory would account for many ‘superior’ Maori genes being put into the overall European settler gene pool and not being identified by race, whereas in the smaller marginalised group because of its size retains its racial identifiers.

E.g Typical modern New Zealand European might be 1/20th Maori ‘good’ genes which aren’t identifiable and the modern Maori might be 1 half ‘bad’ Maori genes and 1 half ‘bad’ European genes and still identifiable by race.

Note: These figures are totally arbitrary for illustrative purposes only.

Note 2: When I use the term ‘bad genes’ what I mean is genes that may well be more biologically successful than ‘good genes’ but which (if they produced certain tendencies) are currently socially disfavoured.

The whole problem around this issue arises as a result of overt racism by society in western countries being got rid of by the 60s, because that was thought of as the cause of inequality, with the believed result that once blatant discrimination was got rid of then everyone would be equal. When of course it didn’t work out like that those hard won social concession were too important to give up. So what they did was turn it all around into some sort of crypto covert racism of something like:

Well it’s these people’s culture not being accounted for and respected which is now the problem.” – And guess what? They can tell what culture you’re supposed to have by what race you are, (and to do that they’ll still use the same 19th century notions of race)

That is how we got to our current racist society, which says it isn’t, but which infact assigns people to a particular cultural straightjacket based on race, even when it must be admitted that any traditional culture is going to have a negative economic performance in the modern world.

So it could be said that assigning culture by race is a tactic of dominant economic groups to ensure their continued economic domination.

Myths part two – Genocide and Holocaust

This is part two of my series examining myth. There are sensitivities involved in this particular myth. But don’t worry, I’ll be back with part three soon!

The Holocaust myth

Before I get started on this one I just wanted to say that I’m not some kind of Neo-Nazi or anything it’s just that the holocaust is a very good example of sacred myth in our society. Some people try to deny it based on the numbers of people that died or what they died of. I do not deny it on that basis but merely because it is myth. Don’t worry about it, nearly everything is!

I remember reading in the Guinness book or records that the greatest holocaust is the “Mongol extermination of Chinese peasantry” . But guess what? That’s not the one we think about!

The Dominant myth goes something like: For no reason a group of people called the Nazis under the leadership of Hitler decided to massacre all the Jews in Europe in specially built camps. This being because Hitler was a uniquely evil kind of person and the Nazis a uniquely evil kind of organisation.

This myth is so powerful that to even call it a myth can get you put in jail in some countries. And yet the counter myth denial of it focuses on the parts that actually are true like the fact of the numbers killed and the method of killing.
i.e the Holocaust denial myth says that they were ‘just work camps’ and that ‘they only died of disease’ etc

The dominant myth in this case starts with its conception as The Holocaust i.e its supposed uniqueness when the Soviets killed more in their camps – just not as efficiently.

Secondly there was obviously no conception of it being The Holocaust while it was happening – It was just some bad shit that was going down. What this means is that people didn’t wake up each day and go “I’m in the holocaust – my victimhood is total and the criminality of anyone guarding the camps is total”.

Thirdly the focus is always on the Jewish people that died they don’t talk about the millions of Russian prisoners of war that were killed – who cares about them?
The obvious reason for this is of course is the political power of the Jewish lobby in America.

Within this is a core problem with the holocaust as a unique event, that being the genocide part of it. genocide is an interesting concept. It means the killing of an entire race of people but the issue here is that if there’s something wrong with a race of people as opposed to large numbers of other people (like POWs being killed what is it? Surely it’s not that races are valuable things. If there was something more valuable about races as opposed to other groups of people then that would be playing into the whole cause of the genocide to begin with. If race has no biological meaning how can there be genocide?

Fourthly as opposed to it being all a Nazi idea it was the outcome of a combination of German and Jewish values. The Jewish value of the mass killing of populations as revealed to Moses, done by Joshua and recorded in the old testament, and the German value of efficiency and hard work.

That’s one of the reasons why Jewish people are so obsessed by ‘the’ Holocaust because they are excited by the idea of killing populations, except in this case since it was them so they can’t support it, but still want to think about it.

It would be one thing if that had happened as a part of Jewish history but now rejected as a bad thing but I’ve never heard any Jewish apology for the holocaust they inflicted upon the original inhabitants of Palestine. This is a part of Christianity too, but no one ever says “Oh God, got that mass killing wrong” So why should we expect a Christian country not to follow the instructions of their faith?

Today, missionaries continue to bring books containing instructions for genocide to all the least sophisticated corners of the earth. Guess what happens!

Fifthly, The conception of a bunch of helpless prisoners surrounded by guards who were controlling everything is infact false.

The book The Devils and the Damned by former prisoner Benedict Kautsky paints a different picture.

See:
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1512

The first wave of prisoners and those in favored groups were able to form an aristocracy and live at the expense of the less fortunate. This included political prisoners (communists and social democrats), those from ‘anti social’ groups and Jews, Gipsies and criminals.

It’s interesting to note that these groups themselves accepted the labels that they and others had been given by the Nazis as meaning something in terms of how other prisoners should be treated. For instance the group of political prisoners who might previously have been battling amongst themselves were in one group whereas ‘criminals’ were in another. But what could ‘criminal’ mean in that context? i.e to be in prison for assault, murder or robbery by people who were doing the same thing but on a much grander scale.

If we look at why the holocaust myth was developed it’s easy just to say “It was the Jews” etc but actually it serves a function for German society because if it was just the fault of the evil Nazis then everyone else could be exonerated. If it turned out that the camps could not function without the support of society at large and the Jews, Communists and Social Democrats in it then that would be a terrible disaster. Luckily for Germany it’s illegal to say that there.

This is all linked in with another myth: That of the lack of responsibility of Germans for the holocaust. The French have a related saying about the occupation that nobody was a collaborator and everyone was in the resistance.
In the German context it is that everyone was silently disapproving and nobody was a Nazi. If it turns out that one of your ancestors was a Nazi, then you say that they had to be in the Nazi party to get along. If they were in the SS you say that they were in a part that didn’t have anything to do with the concentration camps. If they were in the camps you say that they were only following orders.

But in the end, because of the numbers of people that died, everyone is willing to say ‘oh to hell with it let that be a defining myth of evil in our time’.

And by the way even if you don’t think that that Holocaust is myth you likely think that ‘that’ Holocaust is not but other people’s “holocausts” are.  If you don’t believe me try googling “Abortion Holocaust”.

Anyway I’m sick of writing about this one – let’s move onto the next myth.

Clickable extra resources below:

Devilsback

devils_index

devils_and_the_damned_10-11 devils_and_the_damned_12-13 devils_and_the_damned_13-14 devils_and_the_damned_16-17 devils_and_the_damned_18-19 devils_and_the_damned_22-23 devils_and_the_damned_24-25 devils_and_the_damned_26-27 devils_and_the_damned_28-29 devils_and_the_damned_30-31 devils_and_the_damned_32-33 devils_and_the_damned_34-35 devils_and_the_damned_36-37 devils_and_the_damned_38-39 devils_and_the_damned_40-41 devils_and_the_damned_42-43 devils_and_the_damned_44-45 devils_and_the_damned_46-47

Myths and the Mythspace

Myths and the Mythspace

There are objects and there are facts in the world. Everything else is myth. So practically everything we talk about is myth.

Infact, there is so much myth that we really have to divide up the mythspace into first tier myths which are global, unquestioned, unquestionable, invisible and essential. ie myths that it is in everyone’s interest to believe.
I can’t really talk about the global myth although one might be summed up as:
“We aren’t animals”. (and all that is thought to mean)

There is second tier myths which are myths built on other myths and which serve some interest groups. Some of these may be recognised as myths by some people. e.g race.

Then there are third tier myths which are so implausible that they are actually called myths such as ‘urban myths’ as well as myths that children are told such as of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

From the perspective of first tier myth I am going to examine some second tier myths.

Where there is a case of disputation of myth there are two possibilities: The first is a rationalisation – what I call myth purification where the most outlandish aspects of the myth are washed away to leave a more plausible myth.

An example of this is the reformation, when the Catholic church stopped selling passes for people to get into heaven.

The other possibility is to fall into a counter myth where an idea is opposed from the point of view of another myth. An example of this would be during the Cold War with the ideas of communists verses the ideas of McCarthy. (both being mythical)

What myths?

A myth might be defined as a culturally relevant falsehood, which serves some purpose. They function by having some kind of emotionally motivating semantic content, which people believe and act on the basis of.

The reason why we have these myths, is that we need them in order to have the kind of advanced society that we do. But we don’t need all of them. I believe that we actually only need the first level global myth. It might also be an advantage if the global myth was known to be mythical – but (none the less) necessary.

Imagine for instance if you were watching a play or movie, but you believed it was all true. In that case you would be in the same situation as practically everyone is in regard to society.

You don’t run out of the movie theatre if a train comes towards you (as early filmgoers did) and yet you don’t find it all completely dull as you might if you thought it was just a pure lie.

This example will also show you that there can be a level of disbelief about such things but yet we can still get some social use out of them.

Often it is thought that if any believe is a myth we should instantly do away with it. And I know examples of ‘atheists’ for instance who laugh at the foolishness of religious believers, when any atheist I’ve ever spoken to believes in a whole range of moral myths themselves.

Actually, If any individual was to wholly disregards myth they would ironically be regarded as crazy. This is not generally a cause of insanity however, but rather people developing their own unique and thus unacceptable myths.
Infact what we call ‘madness’ may often be the use of a particular myth to indicate some kind of social distress. It was once a kind of madness to believe that your body was made of glass and would break if you moved it. We don’t have that kind of madness any more.

Social dialogue belongs to the myth builders. The person or group that can build the most convincing myth will be able to gain the most power.

Why Myths?

Why believe a myth instead of the truth? And why do people often choose another myth competing myth, when they don’t want to believe a particular myth?

The root of all mythical belief is an emotional appeal. Myths are emotionally appealing and action inducing. Merely exposing the myth as false is emotionally empty, so you have competing myths around emotional topics in order to determine the ‘meaning’ of these topics.

e.g we have natural emotions around death therefore we have many myths around death. The same is true of birth and sex. What is called ‘romance’ for instance is just a set of myths around sex and coupling.

Since there is no absolute reason to do anything; we only ever have emotional motivation to do things. Myth connects the semantic to the emotional by providing larger than life appeals to our basic instincts and motivates our actions.

The 911 myth

The official Bush administration myth was that there was a global network of terrorist sleeper cells headed by Osama bin Laden and connected to Saddam Hussein. On Sept 11 2001 one of these cells attacked America most notably the World Trade Center in New York.
An invasion of Iraq was then necessary to stop any of his massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Now we know that that is all pretty much false, except for the fact that some people did actually attack the towers and the Pentagon.

That falsehood should be enough, but for the counter culture that is not enough because it merely waters down the Bush administration’s case. After all some bunch of Arabs with something to do with Osama Bin Laden did attack America. Which Arabs? Ah, who cares about that?

No, they have to turn it around and say that the US government is so evil and insane that they actually staged an attack on their own military and economic headquarters. Now that’s a reason to be against the US government!

So myth and counter myth, each basically false but each emotionally resonant to some people.

Uniqueness

A feature of many myths is uniqueness – That some people or event has a unique feature that makes it worthy of worship. After all if something is not unique why think about it as opposed to the something of the same kind?
For instance in Christianity the suffering of Jesus is thought of as a unique event in torture and cruelty as opposed to a routine feature of Roman execution.

‘The’ Holocaust is thought of in this light. I remember reading in the Guinness book of records that the greatest holocaust is the Mongol extermination of Chinese peasantry . But guess what? That’s not the one we think about!

In the case of 911 the unique feature was flying a planes into buildings.

In the Lord of the Rings it was the one ring.

End of part one

New Project – The truth about Sexuality.

The Truth about sexuality

Greetings one or two people who may read this.  I have a new project explaining human sexuality because I’m just so damn sick of it not being explained adequately or sensibly.  So I have decided to make a start – again.  But before I do that I thought you might like to know where I got up to last time…

So what would you like to know about human sexuality?

Probably more than you realize.  There is of course the old puzzle that there seems to be such a variation in human sexuality, when there is such a simple evolutionary imperative of reproduction.  A question that might easily be summed up as “how can there be gay people”.  Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if you weren’t an evolutionist or a hard core genetic determinist.  But I am, and if you are also then that could be a problem.

Then there’s other issues, usually around ‘consent’ where the reporting of having performed certain sexual acts will cause you to be imprisoned whereas others will not.

In Africa at the time of writing there have been laws against homosexuality even more extreme than what they used to have in western countries, such that an African minister said:

“Homosexuality is worse than Malignant cancer.  It’s worse than HIV Aids.  It’s worse than terrorism, which you are fighting left and right because it will just wipe out the whole of humanity.”

Actually as we will find out the opposite view is much closer to the truth.  It is Hetrosexuality that has that status.

Now I just want to say that it is not my desire that I go into this whole morass, it just seems to be such a pressing issue of people getting it wrong over and over, and me having to experience that.

So why not give the correct account and then put it up for people to not read because there is no likely path to them discovering the information, but at least I can feel relieved that they could theoretically find out the correct information if they wanted to.

The only real problem for me is that giving the correct account verges onto information that it would be dangerous to reveal and this is about the political structure of structure of society.  I even worry that people might extrapolate from the information that I do reveal, to a correct understanding of society and the environment.  But what am I talking about?  People never extrapolate a damn thing.  That’s why we’re in this mess to begin with.

OK that’s enough bollixing around.  Let’s get down to some explaining.  What sort of society are we in?  Sometimes I have said we are in “The Moral Society” but that’s a just a load of shit.  People just pretend to be in a moral society, and it’s fun  for me to attack that pretense

Really we’re in:

Sorry folks!  I’ll have to leave it there for now.  There was more, but it got serious pretty fast so I thought I would cut it short.  Stay tuned for next time though!

Mini post on lethal chambers

 

Yes it has been a while since I last posted. That’s the busy season for you. But I just read an interesting chapter online and I thought I would share. I’ve had this phrase in my mind about “constructing a kind of a lethal chamber” which was a suggestion I once read from the end of the 19th century to deal with ‘the unfit’. I googled this phrase and came up with this chapter which will explain all. Enjoy!
http://www.ucpress.edu/content/chapters/11080.ch01.pdf

Even when Richard Dawkins is getting it right, he’s getting it wrong

Another day, another ‘shocking’ twitter statement from Richard Dawkins – and ideal blogging fodder for me.  There’s a nice tabloid report here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730028/Atheist-author-Richard-Dawkins-says-foetuses-Downs-syndrome-aborted.html

I love where it says:

Richard Dawkins risked provoking fury today by claiming foetuses with Down’s syndrome should be aborted – and parents should ‘try again’.

You see, the problem here is not that he’s pro eugenics or whatever, the problem is his justification for that position .  That being morality (which is false) and suffering – which is just bizzare.

He claimed that the important question in the abortion debate is not “is it ‘human’?” but “can it suffer?” and insisted that people have no right to object to abortion if they eat meat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html

He insisted he was not questioning the right of people with Down’s syndrome who have already been born to live – just those who have not yet been born.

Well suffering has nothing to do with it, and not questioning the right of people with Down’s syndrome to live is another religious worship that he has.  He should be questioning all rights as all ‘rights talk’ is fundamentally flawed.

People have got to take a step back to basic self interest and work out the question of why you would put more resources into a fundamentally flawed human being than one who has much more potential? That’s what you’re doing with a Downs syndrome child.

People have all these religious and liberal ideas that prevent them seeing the reality of the situation.  All of this got a boost from the outcome of WWII whereby anything associated with fascist regimes was automatically discounted, but while this liberalism was supposedly in the interest of the Jewish people it was really just as damaging to them as well.

Let me ask you, if you seriously think there is nothing practically wrong with giving resources to keep Downs syndrome beings alive and that they should be loved and cherished like any other person: What if there was a disease whose sole symptom was that it caused you to give birth to Downs syndrome babies and it was highly contagious like the common cold.

Should there be any effort to control such a disease?  Or would there be no apparent problem with that since Downs syndrome is not a negative in its self?

What if every child was going to be Downs syndrome?  Would that be a problem for society?  Maybe we could convert the entire human race to Downs Syndrome and see how that works out.

The fantasy aspect

There’s an interesting thing on Wikipedia that point to a liberal moral fantasy among women about the issue:

Abortion rates

When nonpregnant people are asked if they would have a termination if their fetus tested positive, 23–33% said yes, when high-risk pregnant women were asked, 46–86% said yes, and when women who screened positive are asked, 89–97% say yes.[70]

Of course it’s no problem or cost for a woman to claim moral and religious purity and say she wouldn’t abort in the case of Down’s Syndrome if she’s not even pregnant but if she’s actually carrying a child with the condition then that purity carries a huge cost.  Only a rich bitch – some Angelena Jolie moral angel could carry that one off.  Gee in her case I’m sure, even if she was going to give birth to a clump of hair, some skin cells and a few teeth sticking out of it she would make Brad Pitt suck up to that.  It’s amazing what you can do when you’re a hard core Alpha female.

Whatever you do, don’t click here

Finally an apology.  We live in a culture.  That culture is liberal, religious, whatever.
I have a blog and I can say what I can’t normally say in the moral society.

http://www.bim-bad.ru/docs/hinckfuss_ian_moral_society.pdf

I don’t want anything

When it comes to funeral arrangements I don’t want anything, however I don’t want to tell people around me this as it’s only going to upset them.

I don’t want anything because it’s another example of the lack of beliefs that I hold.

Richard Dawkins for instance, when he dies, is likely to have a huge funeral.  He is after all a cultural Christian.  Part of this is the implicit belief that there is something mystical and special about a dead body.  Atheists believe this because they’re not really atheists.  Atheists don’t see a dead body as an inconveniently rotting piece of meat to be disposed of as such, but rather as a special and sacred thing.

If an atheist sees a religious person kissing a statue they will think “That poor deluded idolator” and yet they will go along to a funeral and effectively do the same thing.  The reason for this of course is that an atheist is infact religious – they just can’t get to grips with their own religiosity.

In terms of what I want, I don’t want anything, but in a society following the religion of liberal humanism, fake Christianity and fake Atheism this becomes a problem.  Not wanting anything becomes something  quite major in itself.

Normally if you* want to dispose of something for instance, you just put it in the bin but you can’t just put a body in a bin because someone will likely find it and then it will be all on.  So it would have to be disposed of in such a way as not to cause undue alarm among the citizenry.

One option is to donate your body to science but even if you do that, it seems that nothing is going to stop people from erecting a religious monument to that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005907/So-thats-happens-donate-body-science–600-peoples-remains-buried-single-grave.html

I suppose it would be possible for a person to donate their remains to science with the proviso that when it is ‘used’ it is disposed of like any other medical waste in the hospital system.

Even this has problems however as it suggests that a dead person still has agency after their death, when in reality there is no reason that should be.  So the more correct response would be to say “Do whatever you want” and hope that they understand what you wanted when you were alive.

One thing I should mention however is that I’m not against people celebrating my death – ‘party it up’!  Any excuse for a party is a good one, so I wouldn’t want to deprive people of that.

 

* I often say 'you' when I mean 'one' because I think that 'one' sounds too formal and English upper class.  Sorry if there is any inaccuracy in interpretation because of this.

Not believing in things

I have this problem.  I don’t believe in a whole bunch of things that other people believe in.

Other people also think they have this problem but they usually seem to believe in something else to compensate.

Basically, whatever it is that you believe in I probably don’t believe in it.

Religion is an obvious example.  I don’t believe in it.

But I don’t believe in Atheism either.  I cannot support atheists because of this.

All the top ‘hot button’ issues I don’t believe in.  I don’t believe in abortion for instance but that’s not to say that I’m for or against it – I just don’t have beliefs about it.  I don’t believe in choice and I don’t believe in a right to life either.

In terms of gay marriage – I don’t believe in it, but I’m not against it because I don’t believe in gays and I’m not against people claiming to be gay because I don’t believe in the existence of heterosexuals either.

• I don’t believe in Morality

• I don’t believe in God

• I don’t believe in Liberalism

• I don’t believe in Conservatism

I just have this huge hole where my beliefs about these things should be.  I don’t even believe that I should believe in those things!

Fundamentally I don’t even believe I’m in social reality and on the face of it having a lack of belief that you’re in reality is a completely crazy thing to have.

Pretty much all I believe in is the physical world and general empirical beliefs.  That’s is.

I’ll try and think of some other things that I’m lacking belief in and update this extremely bloglike post.

Oh yeah, anything other than a biological definition of gender – I don’t believe in that.

I feel like I have to balance out any lack of belief that is seen as conservative with one that is seen as liberal.  So I’ll have to come back with a more liberal seeming lack of belief.

Oh, money!  I don’t believe in money!

(Obviously)