Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

April 16, 2025
This is the second in the essay series which began with

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

 
The Fallacy of Universalism

The 20th century’s obsession with universalism – the notion that humanity can be bound by shared values, laws, or moral standards – was a profound misstep, rooted in shaky philosophical foundations and doomed by practical realities. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 to global institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Criminal Court (ICC), universalism promised a unified moral order to transcend cultural and national divides. Yet this pursuit was not just misguided; it was built on false premises that ignored the inherent diversity of humans and their societies. Far from fostering harmony, universalism sought to suppress the biological and social variety that ensures humanity’s resilience and vitality. Driven partly by European guilt after World War II and cloaked in virtue-signaling, it misunderstood human nature and curbed the freedoms it claimed to champion. This post argues that universalism lacks any coherent philosophical grounding – relying on fictions like Natural Law – and fails practically by imposing unworkable frameworks that stifle diversity’s strength. Societies thrive when free to forge their own values, provided they do no harm to others, rendering universalism both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Shaky Foundations

Universalism’s most glaring flaw is its lack of a sound philosophical basis. Proponents often invoke Natural Law – the idea that universal moral truths are inherent in human nature or discoverable through reason – as a cornerstone. This concept, tracing back to thinkers like Aquinas and Locke, assumes a shared essence that dictates right and wrong across all societies. Yet Natural Law is a fiction, a construct that crumbles under scrutiny. As argued in my earlier post, it presupposes a uniformity of human values that history and anthropology disprove. If moral truths were truly universal, why do societies differ so starkly on fundamental questions – life, justice, freedom? The Aztec practice of human sacrifice was as rational to them as modern human rights are to the West; both reflect context, not eternal truths. Natural Law’s claim to universality ignores that reason itself is shaped by culture, environment, and survival needs, yielding no singular moral code.

The contradiction is evident in universalism’s own failures. If values like “do not kill” were innate, as Natural Law suggests, atrocities like the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust would not have mobilized thousands of perpetrators acting with conviction. That thousands of Islamic fundamentalists believe that killing infidels is the right and proper thing to do makes a mockery of ideas of universal morality. Universalist institutions like the ICC assert that crimes such as genocide “shock the conscience of humanity,” implying a shared moral compass. Yet the very occurrence of these acts – often justified as cultural or political imperatives – exposes the absence of such a compass. All the most heinous, inhuman acts in the world – as considered by some – are all committed by other humans who have quite different values. Values are not universal; they are contingent, forged in the crucible of specific societies. To claim otherwise is to project one’s own biases as truth, a philosophical sleight-of-hand that Natural Law enables but cannot sustain.

Other philosophical defenses of universalism fare no better. Kant’s categorical imperative – act only according to maxims you would have as universal law – assumes a rational consensus that doesn’t exist. Societies prioritize different ends: Japan values collective harmony, while the US exalts individual liberty. Neither can universalize its maxim without negating the other. Human rights, another universalist pillar, rest on the same shaky ground. The UDHR’s assertion of inalienable rights – life, equality – sounds noble but lacks grounding in any objective reality. Rights are not discovered; they are invented, reflecting the priorities of their creators (post-war Western elites). When Saudi Arabia or China rejects aspects of the UDHR, they’re not defying reason but asserting their own rational frameworks. Universalism’s philosophical poverty lies in its refusal to admit this pluralism, insisting instead on a unity that suppresses the diversity of human thought.

Over the past three centuries, universalism has masked control as moral duty. Colonial powers invoked civilization to plunder India and Africa, erasing diverse traditions under a universalist banner. The ICC’s African focus continues this, imposing Western justice while sparing Western crimes, proving universalism’s selectivity. Such interventions violate the principle of ‘do no harm,’ curbing societies’ freedom to differ unless they tangibly harm others.

This suppression is not just academic – it’s a curb on freedom. Diversity in values allows societies to experiment, adapt, and thrive in unique ways. Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness metric defies Western materialism yet fosters stability. Indigenous Australian kinship laws prioritize community over individualism, sustaining cultures for millennia. Forcing these societies to align with a universal standard – whether Natural Law or human rights – erases their agency, imposing conformity under the guise of morality. Philosophically, universalism fails because it denies the reality of human variation, mistaking difference for defect.

Why Universalism

The 20th-century love affair with universalism was more emotional than philosophical, driven by European guilt after World War II. The Holocaust, colonial atrocities, and global wars left Europe’s moral credibility in tatters. Once-proud imperial powers faced a reckoning, with their Enlightenment ideals exposed as hollow, by gas chambers, induced famines and bombed cities. The UDHR, drafted under UN auspices, was less a global consensus than a European attempt to reclaim moral ground. Its language – steeped in Western liberalism – framed rights as universal truths, ignoring dissenting voices from post-colonial or non-Western states. Ratification was pushed as necessary evidence of a country being part of the new civilised world order. Countries like India or Saudi Arabia ratified it with caveats, revealing the myth of unity. This virtue-signaling extended to institutions like the UN and ICC, which promised a new world order while sidestepping Europe’s complicity in creating the old one.

Universalism’s roots lie in ancient dreams of unity – Stoic cosmopolitanism, Christian salvation – but these were aspirational, not coercive. The Enlightenment and colonial eras turned universalism into a tool of control, with Natural Law as a flimsy excuse. But these fictions fail to bridge the diversity of human values.

This guilt-driven push was not about understanding humanity but about control by retaking the moral high ground. By proclaiming universal values, Europe (and later the West) sought to redefine the global moral landscape in its image. The ICC’s focus on African states – over 80% of its cases – while sparing Western actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, echoes colonial “civilizing” missions. Universalism became a tool to judge and intervene, not to unite. Its philosophical weakness – lacking a basis beyond Western dogma – made it ripe for such misuse, cloaking power in moral rhetoric.

Universalism is unworkable

Beyond its philosophical flaws, universalism fails practically by imposing frameworks that ignore the diversity of human societies. The complexity of aligning multiple nations under one standard grows exponentially with each participant, as vetoes and competing interests stall progress. The UN Security Council exemplifies this: a single veto from the US, France, the UK, Russia or China can paralyze action, as seen in Syria’s decade-long crisis. The WTO’s Doha Round, launched in 2001, remains deadlocked after 24 years, with 164 members unable to reconcile their priorities. The ICC’s record is equally dismal – 10 convictions in over two decades, none involving major powers like the US or India, who opt out entirely. These failures stem from a simple truth: the more diverse the players, the harder it is to find, let alone enforce, a universal rule.

Contrast this with bilateral agreements, which are exponentially simpler. A nation negotiates with one partner at a time, tailoring terms to mutual benefit without navigating a global gauntlet. Since the 1990s, bilateral trade deals have surged – over 300 globally by 2025 – while multilateral talks languish. The USMCA replaced NAFTA precisely because three nations could align faster than 34 under earlier pan-American proposals. Even security pacts, like India-Japan defense agreements, thrive on bilateral trust, not universal ideals. The math is clear: for “N” countries, managing “N-1” bilateral relationships is far less chaotic than wrestling with “N!” (N factorial) potential interactions in a multilateral arena. Like Rome’s Pax Romana, modern universalism falters when imposed, breeding resistance not unity. Bilateral cooperation, rooted in mutual respect, proves more viable

Universalism’s practical flaw is its denial of sovereignty. Societies function best when free to set their own rules, as long as they do no harm to others. Iceland’s secular egalitarianism and Saudi Arabia’s religious conservatism coexist peacefully because neither imposes its values across borders. When harm occurs—say, overfishing causing dwindling fish stocks, bilateral and/or multilateral cooperation among the parties involved can address it far better than by demanding ideological conformity. Universalist institutions, by contrast, breed resentment by judging internal practices. The UN’s human rights sanctions on Iran or the ICC’s warrants against African leaders provoke defiance, not compliance, as societies reject external moralizing.

The Strength of Difference

Individuals being different is humanity’s greatest asset, biologically and socially. Genetically, variation ensures survival (of the species though not of the unfit individual), allowing species adaptation to environmental shifts – a too narrow genetic spread would go extinct. Socially, this diversity manifests in the myriad ways societies organize themselves. The Maasai’s nomadic communalism sustains them in arid lands, while Singapore’s meritocratic discipline drives its prosperity. These systems, often at odds with universalist ideals, prove that cohesion requires no global standard. The “do no harm” principle respects this, allowing societies to be “unusual” so long as they avoid cross-border damage. When Japan’s whaling sparks debate, the issue is ecological impact, not moral offense. This approach fosters peace through mutual restraint, not forced unity.

Universalism’s attempt to erase the “we/them” dichotomy is both futile and destructive. Group identity – cultural, national – fuels cohesion and innovation. The “brotherhood of man” sounds noble but ignores that brotherhood privileges some over others. To eliminate “we/them” is to strip societies of their freedom to differ, demanding a homogeneity that negates diversity’s strength. The backlash – rising nationalism, skepticism of global bodies – reflects a reclaiming of this freedom.

Conclusion: Beyond Universalism

The 20th-century chase for universalism was a flawed response to a troubled era, rooted in European guilt and philosophical fiction. Natural Law and its offspring – human rights, global justice – lack grounding in the reality of human diversity. Practically, universalism’s complex frameworks collapse under the weight of competing sovereignties, while bilateral solutions prove nimbler and more respectful of difference. Societies thrive when free to forge their own paths, bound only by the duty to do no harm. Humanity’s strength lies not in sameness but in variation – genetic, cultural, ideological. By embracing this, we can foster a world of cooperation without conformity, where diversity, not universalism, ensures our resilience and freedom.

In order of difficulty in organising any field of activity, national is simpler than bilateral which is, in turn, simpler than multi-lateral and international –  in that sequence. It seems the world was bitten by the international bug during the 20th century, but has now realised it has gone too far and is now gingerly drawing back because international bodies have largely proven ineffective, bureaucratic, or politically manipulated.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Law, Philosophy | Comments Off on The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

March 19, 2025

For many years I have struggled with finding the words to express my instinctive feelings against attempts to apply “universal” principles across all humans and which suppress human individuality. I have often tried  – usually without much success – to explain my dislike for concepts such as universal morality, Natural law, universal rights, unearned rights as entitlements and entitlements independent of behaviour. I am coming to the conclusion that my objections to, and dislike of, these concepts are essentially philosophical. Explanations of my objections need, I think, to be couched in philosophical terms.

I try to address these (again) in this series of essays.

Natural Law is often presented as a foundational principle governing human morality, law, and rights, claiming to be a universal standard of justice inherent in human nature. However, a closer examination reveals that Natural Law is not an empirical reality but a constructed ideological tool. It emerges only when different societies with distinct laws interact, and its purpose has historically been to justify the imposition of one society’s norms over another. The absence of empirical evidence for Natural Law, combined with its theological underpinnings and political motivations, renders it an unconvincing framework for understanding human morality and governance. Instead, morality is best understood as an emergent property of individual human values, varying across cultures, historical periods, and personal experiences. Here I try to explore the philosophical, historical, and empirical reasons why Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept and why morality must be recognized as subjective rather than universal.

The Absence of Empirical Evidence for Natural Law

If Natural Law were a genuine feature of human existence, we would expect to observe universal moral principles across all societies and cultures. However, anthropological and historical research reveals no such universality. While there are commonalities in human behavior – such as cooperation and conflict resolution – these vary significantly in their expression. For example, concepts of justice, property, and individual rights differ widely between societies. The idea that certain rights are inherent to all human beings is not supported by empirical observation but rather by ideological assertions.

Human history is filled with examples of societies that have organized themselves around vastly different moral and legal systems. From the caste-based hierarchy of ancient India to the communal property arrangements of indigenous tribes, moral codes are deeply context-dependent. Even within the same society, moral norms evolve over time, reflecting changes in economic conditions, technological advancements, and cultural shifts. This variability directly contradicts the claim that a singular, natural moral order governs human behavior.

The lack of empirical confirmation for Natural Law relegates it to the realm of metaphysical speculation. If Natural Law cannot be observed or tested, then it is indistinguishable from theological doctrine. It becomes a belief system rather than a demonstrable reality, making it no different from religious faith. This reliance on unprovable assertions undermines its credibility as a foundation for legal or moral theory.

Natural Law as a Tool of Domination

Natural Law does not emerge in isolated societies but only when different societies with conflicting rules interact. Historically, it has been invoked to justify the imposition of one society’s rules over another, often under the guise of a higher moral authority. Colonialism, religious expansion, and political domination have frequently relied on claims of Natural Law to legitimize conquest and control.

For instance, European colonial powers used the rhetoric of Natural Law to justify the subjugation of indigenous populations. They framed their legal and moral systems as “civilized” and based on universal principles, while dismissing native customs as inferior or unnatural. This ideological framework provided moral cover for coercion, exploitation, and cultural erasure. Of course religious institutions across the world have been quick to confer the halo of Natural Law on their own dogma. Religious institutions from have often used Natural Law arguments to enforce moral conformity, punishing deviations from dogmatic norms under the pretense of upholding their universal truths.

Natural Law’s historical role as an instrument of domination raises serious ethical concerns. If its primary function has been to serve the interests of those in power, then its legitimacy as a moral guide is highly suspect. Rather than being an impartial standard of justice, it appears to be a rhetorical device used to consolidate control over others.

The Fallacy of Universal Morality

The assumption that a universal morality exists contradicts the reality of human individuality. Every human being is genetically unique, behaves in distinct ways, and forms personal values based on their own experiences. Given this diversity, it is absurd to claim that a single moral code applies equally to all people. What is “good” for one person may be harmful or undesirable for another. What is “good” for me here and now is certain to be “bad” for some one of the other 8 billion people alive.

The idea of universal morality is, at best, an abstraction with no real-world grounding. At worst, it is an imbecilic construct used to justify coercion. The imposition of a supposedly universal moral order disregards the fact that morality is fundamentally a product of individual cognition. Each person’s moral framework emerges from their subjective values, which they use to navigate life’s complexities. The attempt to enforce a single moral standard on diverse populations is not only impractical but also a form of ideological tyranny.

Furthermore, moral codes are often shaped by historical circumstances rather than any intrinsic natural order. Concepts of justice, equality, and rights have changed dramatically over time, reflecting societal needs rather than adherence to some eternal truth. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable in many civilizations, and its eventual abolition was not the result of a discovery of Natural Law but of shifting economic and political forces. The same can be said for religious freedoms or freedom of expression and numerous other moral issues. This historical fluidity further undermines the idea that moral principles are fixed or inherent.

The Political Function of Universal Morality

If morality is not universal but instead emerges from subjective values, why does the myth of Natural Law persist? The answer lies in its political utility. The concept of a universal moral order provides a convenient justification for those in power to enforce their will on others. By claiming that certain moral rules are “self-evident” or “natural,” political and religious leaders can sidestep debate and impose their norms without question.

Universal morality is, in effect, a political construct. It serves as a tool for suppressing dissent and legitimizing authority. Governments, religious institutions, and international bodies all invoke the language of universal morality to assert control over populations. For example, international human rights laws claim to be based on fundamental moral principles, yet they often reflect the political interests of dominant nations. The selective enforcement of these laws—where powerful countries violate them with impunity while weaker nations face harsh penalties—reveals their true function as mechanisms of control rather than genuine moral imperatives.

By recognizing morality as inherently subjective, we expose the coercive nature of universal moral claims. A society that acknowledges the diversity of moral perspectives is better equipped to foster genuine dialogue and coexistence. Instead of imposing artificial moral absolutes, ethical and legal systems should be constructed with an understanding of human individuality and the necessity of negotiated social agreements.

Conclusion

Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept because it lacks empirical evidence, serves as a tool of domination, and falsely assumes a universal morality that does not exist. The historical and political record demonstrates that claims to Natural Law have been used primarily to justify coercion and control, rather than to uncover any genuine moral truth. Morality, rather than being an objective reality, emerges from individual values and experiences. Recognizing this subjectivity allows for a more honest and flexible approach to ethical and legal systems, one that respects human diversity rather than imposing ideological uniformity.

By rejecting Natural Law, we free ourselves from the illusion of universal morality and open the door to a more nuanced understanding of ethics—one that acknowledges the complexities of human existence rather than imposing rigid, arbitrary norms. The path to justice and social harmony lies not in fabricated moral absolutes but in the recognition of individual agency and the negotiated agreements that allow diverse societies to coexist.

Natural Law is, in fact, nothing more than a political invention for use as a tool for oppression.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Philosophy | Comments Off on The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

I’m quite optimistic about a Trump Presidency

January 23, 2025

Let’s be clear about one thing. In my opinion Kamala Harris was just a DEI hire. She was fundamentally incompetent but selected and appointed to demonstrate diversity, equity and inclusion as VP. Apart from her remarkable ability to generate meaningless word salad about anything (and everything), she had no redeeming characteristics which would have allowed her to be of value as President – either for the US or for the world. Even as a token woman she would have been a disaster. (I listened to her talk about the LA fires yesterday and it was an embarrassment).

So my reaction to the results of the US Presidential election was first of immense relief that the world would avoid four miserable, wishy washy years of Biden being followed by an even worse four years of Harris. I am not sufficiently opposed to, or disturbed by, Donald Trump as a person or his behaviour to object to him as President. I think he is pompous and crude and vulgar but he has felt the pulse of the working people of the country much more than any one among the Democrats. He is also the appropriate, abrasive personality needed at this time to clean-up after years of mess. A Ronald Reagan would have been far too laid back and would not have suited the needs of the times. The effete Democrats and their intellectual pretensions bring to mind a degenerate Berlin of the late 20s or even the degenerate and dissolute Western Roman Empire before it fell. I am constantly amazed at how closed and petty the minds of “learned liberals” are. I now associate arrogance and nasty intolerance with the Liberal label. Trump, for all his petty faults, does know how to make a deal and he has a gut feeling for the right political direction for the country. He understands, I think, that it is making real things which others want, which is what lies at the core of a country’s prosperity. I think he has an intuitive understanding of what a deal really is. He knows in his bones – even if he does not articulate it very well – that a deal in a conflict situation always involves the minimisation of the total pain. It is only deals made in times of peace and growth where the art of the deal is looking for a maximisation of the total joy. Win/win does not apply to conflict situations. So, I was quite pleased at the election results.

The US – and the world which follows the lead of the US – desperately needs much more than just a course correction. It needs a sharp change of direction away from the elitism of the self proclaimed intelligentsia and the insidious woke virus which has been corrupting and eating away at the body politic. I was not, and am not, even mildly sympathetic to the promotion of sanctimonious wokery, the glorification of freaks, the canonisation of pretend victimhood and the stifling of entrepreneurship. So, I was first enormously relieved to see Harris lose, but I am an optimist at bottom and was also quite pleased to see Trump win.

Unlike many, I am quite hopeful that under a Trump Presidency, there is a much greater probability for resolutions of conflict in the world, for a stimulation of global economic growth, and above all for eradicating the wokery disease now endemic in the US and which has spread across the globe. More bilateralism and less internationalism is badly needed. At least 5 of the UN’s 15 specialist agencies ought to be scrapped. (The EU also needs much dismantling but Trump can only affect this indirectly). A Trump Presidency is needed I believe not only for a change of course in the US, but also for the change that needs to follow in the rest of the world. Europe and Canada and parts of S America and Asia also desperately need to correct course. Mucking out the  stables of “social academia” globally is not going to be easy or quick. Under the vacillations of Obama and the utter incompetence of Biden, the Mid East conflagration had become inevitable. Under EU arrogance and Biden’s support of NATO and EU expansion, the Russia / Ukraine conflagration became inevitable. (That Biden was senile and not responsible for what was done in his name for the last 2-3 years is moot).

The cease-fire in Gaza may not last very long but it is a start. It is pretty impressive that it got put in place before he had even assumed office. Biden and his now-pardoned-guilty team got nowhere since the Hamas atrocities of October 7th. The first rule of negotiation I was taught when seeking funding for contract research, and later when I worked in sales, was that the first bid or offer you make should be outrageously positioned to shift the playing field towards you. It is also the first rule when going into an arbitration. Make your claim as extreme as possible. Every arbitrator – of necessity – seeks the middle ground. Now even before he assumed office, Trump started his outrageous positioning. Ultra-woke Trudeau came running and then resigned. Greenland is already on the table even if indignant Danish voices are being heard. Denmark has not done very much for Greenlanders over the years and is no longer the principal in the discussion. It is the Greenlanders who now suddenly find that their citizenship is carrying a growing value tag. Greenlanders are calculating what their windfall could be worth, whether as a part of Denmark or of the US or of both! And so also with the Panama Canal. One outrageous statement by Trump has changed the playing field and even the game being played. In fact some of Trump’s protagonists thought they were playing basketball are now scrambling as they find that Trump has started by playing soccer. I see that on his first day as President the Indian government assured the US that some 18,000 Indians illegally in the US would be taken back by India. Trump has already put BRICS on notice that putting forward alternative currencies to displace the US Dollar would be frowned upon. The BRICS countries are now back-tracking on some of their rhetoric. What were effective threats from foreign countries for Biden are seen as provocations to be avoided with Trump. And so it goes. Trump 2.0 is quite a different beast to Trump 1.0.

The size and inefficiencies of governments around the world have kept on increasing for the last 70 years (not least due to the examples set by international agencies). In a little way, Argentina recently started demonstrating that many government civil servants are really not necessary at all. Trump and his DOGE ar likely to take it very much further. I only hope that some of the good housekeeping gets exported to the profligate and bloated bureaucracy that is the EU. Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency “has vowed to cut bureaucratic red tape by 50 percent, reduce federal spending by US$1 trillion over the next four years, and re-engineer the function of government by providing real-time budget tracking to the US public”. We shall see.

And of course common sense needs to return to immigration and the misuse of applications for “asylum”. The self-righteous sanctimony of the liberal left has to be stopped and the high priests of the religion of multiculturalism need to be defrocked – in public.

Mercator: 

…. Much to the chagrin of his critics, Trump’s mass deportation plan is remarkably popular — not just among his supporters, but American voters generally, and Hispanics in particular. And Trump already appears to be living up to his pledges — with the controversial CBP One app shut down, a suite of Biden executive orders rescinded, a border emergency declared, and the Laken Riley Act about to be signed into law. …..

Nevertheless, if the contrast between Trump’s first and second presidential portraits is any indication, Trump 2.0 emerges energised, defiant, sharper to the strategies of his adversaries, and determined to complete the mission he was sent to accomplish in Washington.

I am looking to see the Ukraine/ Russia conflict be resolved, not to anybody’s liking, and not perhaps in 100 days, but with the lowest total pain, in around 12 – 18 months. I have no doubt that a workable solution is going to include ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia and some form of restraints on NATO expansion. I look to a focus on growth and an abandonment of virtue signalling – especially by industry. Companies need to get back to providing the best product and abandon advertising how woke they are. I have no objection to an America First policy by Trump’s government. That is actually the duty of any national government in any country. Their primary obligation is to take care of their own citizens first.

Maybe my optimism will be unfounded.

But I think not. The legacy of both Bushes and of Obama look fairly lacklustre in hindsight. Obama’s foreign policy was a disaster and he was particularly bad in many domestic areas. (I was very taken with Obama to begin with, but it didn’t last. He was a nice guy, like Jimmy Carter, but ….). It could be that Trump’s Presidency may turn out to be the next most successful after Reagan.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on I’m quite optimistic about a Trump Presidency

Pronoun delusions: If you need to give me “your pronouns” ……

January 20, 2025

If you need to give me “your pronouns”:

  1. You are insecure at best and mentally ill at worst,
  2. You are cognitively disadvantaged and do not know what you are,
  3. You believe you will not be perceived as you wish to be perceived,
  4. You are either male or female but wish to be perceived as what you are not,
  5. There are no other genders no matter what delusion you are suffering from,
  6. I have no use for any of your desired pronouns,
  7. If I communicate directly with you I shall use “I” and “You”,
  8. If I refer to you it will be as “he” or “she” depending upon how I perceive you,
  9. How I perceive you (how you are perceived by me) is a consequence of your appearance and your behaviour and not on your desires,
  10. You can pretend to be whatever you wish to be, and your skill determines if my perception matches your pretense,
  11. How I perceive you (how you are perceived by me) is your responsibility, not mine,
  12. Your identity is fixed at conception when your DNA is established which remains unchanged during your lifetime,
  13. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment or therapy can change your DNA,
  14. Your identity cannot be chosen by you nor is it subject to change.

If you need to give me your pronouns you are insecure at best and mentally ill at worst. And it serves no purpose.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Pronoun delusions: If you need to give me “your pronouns” ……

And he’s not even in office yet ……

January 16, 2025

Unlike many of my friends and acquaintances (and not to mention my religiously liberal relatives), I have rather high expectations of a Trump Presidency. The reversal of some of the obscene wokery that has spread around the world has started. Whether the world can be inoculated against the woke virus remains to be seen. I was expecting the Middle East to get quieter and the NATO expansion to be curbed. I expected some solution – no matter how unpleasant – of the Russia/ Ukraine – NATO-EU conflict. I am expecting a new growth surge to break the EU engendered economic slumber that currently prevails. I am expecting / hoping for a rollback of some of the intellectual prostitution and multilateral excesses that have become globally endemic.

Well, we shall see. He will not take office till Monday, but the signs are promising

HT:

Israel and Hamas have agreed to pause the devastating war in the Gaza Strip that was going on since October 7, 2023.

Netanyahu also called Trump to thank him.

The US State Department on Wednesday said the involvement of President-elect Donald Trump’s team was critical in getting the truce deal between Israel and Hamas in Gaza over the line.

President-elect Donald Trump was in the centre of news after Israel, Hamas deal.(AP)

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller also thanked Donald Trump and his team for working with the Joe Biden administration and said it was important that they were on the table.

“When it comes to the involvement of President-Elect Trump’s team, it has been absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line. It’s been critical because obviously, as I stand here today, this administration’s term in office will expire in five days…We, of course, thank the Trump team for working with us on this cease-fire agreement. We think it’s important that they were at the table,” he said in a press conference after the deal was announced.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on And he’s not even in office yet ……

The UK grooming gangs have been active for at least 40 years

January 5, 2025

I am surprised at the denial we see now. The UK Pakistani-British grooming gangs have been active for over 40 years. The scandal has even made it past the Wikipedia political correctness police.

Wikipedia:

The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal consists of the organised child sexual abuse of girls that occurred in the town of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, Northern England, from the late 1980s until 2013[9] and the failure of local authorities to act on reports of the abuse throughout most of that period.[10] Researcher Angie Heal, who was hired by local officials and warned them about child exploitation occurring between 2002 and 2007, has since described it as the “biggest child protection scandal in UK history”,[11] with one report estimating that 1,400 girls, primarily from care home backgrounds, were abused by “grooming gangs” between 1997 and 2013.[9] Evidence of the abuse was first noted in the early 1990s, when care home managers investigated reports that children in their care were being picked up by taxi drivers.[12] From at least 2001, multiple reports passed names of alleged perpetrators, several from one family, to the police and Rotherham Council. The first group conviction took place in 2010, when five British-Pakistani men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12–16.[13]

In the first half of the 80s I used to travel regularly to the Grimethorpe/Doncaster/ Bradford area and recall first hearing vague pub gossip about gangs exploiting young girls who were in care by creating and feeding their drug habits. But it was just gossip then. It was at a time when it was taboo to say anything negative about the immigrant community. Truth be damned. It was only in the 90s that some few journalists began writing about this. Council politicians, social workers, policemen and the politically correct fraternity did not just turn a blind eye. The girls were mainly “white trash” and “in care” after all. They actively protected the perpetrators and demonised the victims. The current groomers are not new immigrants with a culture gap. They are second-generation, but brought up in their multiculturally allowed grooming culture.

So why the hand-wringing and surprise now.

I told you so.

I wrote this post almost 11 years ago:

A “society” – to be a society – can be multi-ethnic but not multicultural

A “culture” is both the glue that binds any society of humans and lubricates the interactions within that society. It applies as well to a family or an association or a sports club or a company or a geographic area (say a country). The culture of any sub-society – a sub-culture – must be subordinated to that of the larger society it is  – or wants to be – part of.

Of course one can have – if one wishes – many different cultures within different sub-societies in a single geographic area. But if these sub-cultures are not subordinated to a larger culture then the sub-societies cannot – because it becomes a fatal contradiction – make up any larger society. Multiculturalism dooms that geographical area to inevitably be a splintered and fractured “greater” society – if at all.

The politically correct “multiculturalism” followed in Europe in recent times has effectively preserved and maintained each ethnic group in its own cultural silo and – inanely – made a virtue out of preventing the evolution of any overriding, common culture. This has been the fundamental, “do-gooding” blunder of the socialist/liberal “democrats” all through Europe. Creating a society of the future with a common culture as the glue has been sacrificed in a quest for some imagined God of Many Cultures. For an immigrant – anywhere – how could it be more important to keep the language of his past rather than to learn the language of his future? The “do-gooders” have prioritised living in the past to creating and living in a new future.

Hence Rotherham and Bradford or Kreuzberg or Rosengård or Les Bosquets,

Multi-ethnic communities particularly need both a glue and a lubricating medium. And that has to be an overriding common – new – culture and not some mish-mash, immiscible collection of sub-cultures – each within its own silo, insulated and held separate from all others.

  1. Multi-ethnic societies are inevitable around the world.
  2. A single society has a single culture.
  3. To have many cultures in one area – which are not subordinated to a larger culture (values) – is to exclude a single society.
  4. Promoting multiculturalism is to promote the fracturing of that area into many immiscible (inevitably ethnic) societies.

Multi-ethnicity – especially – requires a mono-culture to be a society at all.

Multi-ethnic and multi-cultural is separatism and serves to ensure that a single society will never be established.

and again 8 years ago ..

“Multiculturalism” always gives fractured and segregated societies

It seems obvious. Multi-ethnic societies, even with well -developed sub-cultures, work very well under an over-riding common culture. In fact the over-riding common culture is dynamic and takes on parts of the various sub-cultures. But societies with parallel cultures with no over-riding common culture can only give a fractured society. It  prevents any common culture developing and inevitably gives ethnic segregation. For over 5 decades, these parallel cultures have been promoted by the liberal, social-democratic, do-gooding, misguided elite of Europe.

It is not at all surprising that the cities of Europe now have segregated and have no-go ghettos which consider themselves outside of the main society and not subject to the rules and behaviour expected in that society.

Well, I did tell you so.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, UK | Comments Off on The UK grooming gangs have been active for at least 40 years

No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award

January 4, 2025

DEI programs are part of the wokery delusion. By definition a “DEI hire” would not have been appointed to any position or received any award without having received unfair favour – to the detriment of somebody else being discriminated against. No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award.

Claudine Gay is one of the more famous woke/DEI catastrophes. She would never have been appointed to be President of Harvard if she had not been black and female. She was neither best qualified nor most competent for the job. But she was black and she was female. The insidiousness of cancerous DEI programs is that I now assume – as the default assessment – that any black person in a high position in US academia must probably have been a DEI hire. Almost every university has its token employees and some in very high positions. I was listening to a black Dean from Columbia recently and my automatic assumption was that this was  a “DEI hire”. The Dean said nothing sufficiently insightful to change my mind during the 4 minute interview. I have written him off in my mind as a “DEI hire” but, for all I know, the Dean may actually have been quite competent and deserving of the appointment. 

Too late. DEI has struck. The label is permanent. 

I find most DEI / affirmative action / reservation schemes fundamentally flawed and unjust. By definition a “DEI hire” would not have been appointed to any position or received any award without having received unfair favour – to the detriment of somebody else being discriminated against. No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award. No matter how qualified, the beneficiaries of such schemes will always carry the stigma of not having been the “best” for the position (whether job or student place). There is no doubt that in the US, competence has suffered as a consequence of affirmative action and DEI. The reservation system and its distorted benefits in India has helped perpetuate the caste system. So much so that the reservation system is institutionalized and corrupted. In Europe the decline in competence of public service TV employees is on continuous display with program presenters and coordinators lacking in basic competences but fulfilling some “inclusivity” or “diversity” wish. In countries with quotas for women directors, competent women are unfortunately being painted with the quota brush. The New Zealand Navy has prioritized diversity over the sinkability of its ships. It was recently apparent that the US Secret Service has also decreased its capability to protect its charges by giving priority to diversity in hiring. A small person holding up her hands, apparently to protect a very tall person, was one of the more ludicrous images that persist.

These schemes are not far short of stupid. Reverse discrimination involves actions against the innocent to favour the currently disadvantaged to try and compensate for criminal discrimination by other people to other victims. They are all inherently unjust schemes with a remarkable lack of common sense.

I try to list the failings of such schemes (mainly as practiced in the US and Europe).

  • Tokenism: DEI programs are often just a facade to appear inclusive. That ethnically diverse work places provide benefits is a religious woke belief but there is no evidence that it is so.
  • Reverse Discrimination: DEI initiatives always lead to reverse discrimination, where qualified individuals from majority groups are overlooked in favor of less-qualified candidates from underrepresented groups. This has inevitably caused resentment and emphasized the stupidity of such schemes.
  • Lack of Measurable Results: The effectiveness of DEI programs is unproven due to the impossibility of measuring their impact on organizational performance. Diversity and inclusion only bring political benefits to the program organizers, but benefits to the organization cannot be quantified.
  • Focus on Diversity Over Inclusion: DEI programs often prioritize diversity in terms of demographics (race, gender, etc.) but neglect the importance of the primary purpose of any workplace – which is to do some specified work.
  • Administrative Burden: DEI initiatives are extremely time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring significant administrative effort to implement and maintain. This are a significant burden on organizations, especially smaller ones with no quantifiable benefits.
  • Stereotyping: DEI initiatives lead to stereotyping and perpetuating of such stereotyping.

It is often sanctimoniously claimed that DEI is “about creating a workplace where everyone feels valued, respected, and has equal opportunities to succeed”. What they conveniently forget is that a workplace is for doing work. Getting the work done is the objective not the practicing of religious rituals.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics | 1 Comment »

US Presidential voting – Black women appear the most racist voters

December 19, 2024

The numbers usually tell the tale.

You don’t have to be an expert psephologist to be able to read the numbers (and of course most expert psephologists have been proven not just to be wrong but remarkably so. Prof Allan Lichtman being the unedifying example of one such unable to acknowledge his own mistakes and his ignorance).

What the exit poll numbers show quite conclusively in the US Presidential election is that black men (77/21), all blacks (86/13) and black women in particular (92/8) voted along racial lines. No other ethnic group comes close to this one-sided voting pattern. Of course there are other nuances here that do not surface through the raw numbers. Nevertheless the numbers are not wrong.

Among all other ethnic groups votes were reasonably well distributed and both candidates received over one third of the votes. Certainly the Latino vote was not skewed towards the Democrats as I had first thought it would be. However sometime before the election I realised that illegal immigration is seen very negatively by legal immigrants, both for the economic space they occupy in the country and for the threat the illegals pose to the social standing of the legal immigrants. Only among native American Indians was there a clear preference (68/31 but far from overwhelming) for one candidate (a little surprisingly for the Republicans). It seems the Democrats are no longer the party of choice for Latinos or blue collar workers.

The exit poll results suggests strongly that in practice blacks in the US – and black women in particular – are now probably the most racist ethnic groups, at least with regard to who they vote for.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on US Presidential voting – Black women appear the most racist voters

“Misgendering” is an artificial and nonsensical concept

December 16, 2024

“Misgender” is an artificially created word but it is a nonsense word (a la Edward Lear) which has been assigned a meaning which I shall show is unreal. It has been created to fit the woke fantasies and is an unnecessary word. “To misgender” (verb) means to assign a gender to someone (male or female) which does not match the desired gender of that someone. This is impossible in practice. Suppose person A perceives person B to be male and refers to person B as male. Person B – irrespective of whether actually male or female – wishes to be perceived as female and screams to high heaven that “she” is being “misgendered”. Person A has no interest or use for the word. Person B – if truly female – feels no great insult. Only if person B is actually a male, but who desires to be perceived as female (or vice versa), does that person take umbrage. Yet it is person B who is responsible and therefore liable for how he/she is perceived by others. The fault lies always with person B.

The artificial concept of “misgendering” is nonsensical because it rests on the utterly mistaken fantasy that a person may choose which gender to be. There is a tiny fraction of people (0.02%) who are born with physical aberrations which makes their gender truly ambiguous. There are a few (perhaps 1% of births) where mental aberrations lead to people genuinely believing they ought to be the other gender than they are. There are still others who are brain washed into believing likewise and some who pretend to that belief to get attention.

We need to start with identity.

I take the identity of a “thing” to be that which distinguishes that thing from every other thing in our universe.

The identity of any “thing” in our universe is then given by any unique combination of parameters that can distinguish it from all other things. These parameters can vary depending on the nature of the thing:

  • Physical Things:
    • Atomic Level: Spatial and temporal coordinates, quantum state, and isotopic composition.
    • Macroscopic Objects: Spatial and temporal coordinates, mass, shape, chemical composition, and other physical properties.
  • Concepts and Abstractions:
    • Concepts: Definition, authorship, relationship to other concepts, and cultural context.
    • Abstract Objects: Mathematical properties, logical axioms, and formal definitions.
  • Living Things:
    • Biological Parameters: Genetic code, species, developmental stage, and physiological state.
    • Spatial and Temporal Parameters: Location and time of existence.

A human’s DNA is pretty well frozen at or soon after conception. Chromosomes and gender are fixed then – forever. A human’s unique identity in the universe is also determined at this time – forever. That unique identity persists, in fact, even after death. The probability of a particular human DNA sequence having ever existed or ever appearing again is vanishingly small.

The human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs. Each base pair can be one of four nucleotides: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), or guanine (G). The likelihood of two individuals having identical DNA is extremely small, with estimates around 1 in 10^480000. This is an incredibly small number, essentially zero. Even considering the entire history of humanity and potential future generations, the chance of another person having the exact same DNA sequence as you is practically zero.

Humans often use other descriptors (name, physical attributes, occupation, ….) as part of their identity but these are just descriptors, adjectives, and not unique identifying parameters. Professions or occupations such as a lawyer or a doctor are descriptions and not strictly about identity. A descriptor may sometimes also be convenient as a supporting identifier, but is never sufficient on its own for identity. Descriptors may change during a person’s life or only apply for a short time. In the case of humans such descriptors are redundant for identity because something much more immutable is available in the form of a DNA sequence. What is absolutely clear is that an individual human cannot choose or change identity. They can certainly change and develop and gain descriptors during their lifetimes. They can change their skills and their jobs and their hair style and their weight and their appearance. They can even pretend to be other than they are. They cannot, though, change sex and they cannot change gender. They cannot choose their identity. They are who they are and not who they wish to be. They cannot ever change the DNA sequence they are born with. They may undergo all manner of treatment or therapy or surgery but their DNA remains unchanged.

It has become fashionable in the current age of woke hysteria to claim to be a victim of “misgendering”. (These are among the most cringe-inducing claims possible). It is a very artificial and awkward word and is a part of modern wokery. It is a verb based on the noun “gender”. But “misgendering” claims are all nonsense claims. When somebody is not perceived to be the gender they claim to be, it is always their own fault and their own responsibility. How one is perceived is not the responsibility of the perceiver but of the perceived. The remedy for an “erroneous” perception lies with the perceived not with the perceiver. There are indeed a few people who are genuinely transgender. They are clearly suffering from a mental condition in believing they are a different gender. They need medical and psychological support. But they are not usually the ones screeching about being misgendering victims. The majority of the self-proclaimed victims of “misgendering” are delusional or brainwashed. They are those who imagine and/or claim to be transgender in a desperate quest for attention. The worst of these attention-seekers are usually the ones who also whine loudest about being victims of “misgendering”.

Victims of “misgendering” have only themselves to blame for being perceived to be the gender they do not wish to be perceived as. Pretending to be the gender that you are not, does not help. You cannot impose your delusions about yourself to be the perceptions of others.

The reality is that only you can “misgender” yourself.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on “Misgendering” is an artificial and nonsensical concept

A return to family values is an existential necessity

December 5, 2024

The declining global fertility rate has many causes but the backdrop which enables medicine and contraception and family planning and abortion and government policy to have the effects they do, is the decline in the importance of the family. It is the side-lining of “family values” which is manifested now in so many women not wishing to have children. Not having children has been seen as a kind of emancipation. But, as Japan and many other countries are now finding it is also why the loneliness of the aged (men and women) is increasing so rapidly. Over half of all Japanese women now living, it is said, will never experience having children. The number of men so afflicted is harder to estimate but is thought to be a little higher. The period in China when the one child policy was enforced is also having its impact as families have been discouraged. Loneliness with age is the new normal.

The over-population problem is effectively over. However, the species needs a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman to maintain a stable population. A population implosion has now started and is gaining speed. The cold hand of demographics means that to change current trends will take many generations. Within the next 50 years – and this is inevitable – every country in the world will have a birth rate below the replenishment level and will have a declining population. Parts of Europe have been mitigating the loss of births by immigration but even immigrant fertility rates drop within two generations to the country average.

A return to giving a higher value to “family values” is an existential necessity. Probably we have about 100 years or so to avoid a catastrophic population collapse. 

Replenishment level is 2.1

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Ageing, Behaviour, Demographics | Comments Off on A return to family values is an existential necessity

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »