The term “gender” has evolved from originally meaning the biological sex of an individual to meaning something about the social or cultural identity of the individual.  This is logically problematic.  A male gender identity is said to derive from engaging in behaviors that are generally classified as “male,” and similarly for a female gender identity.  The fundamental logical problem with this is that the classification of any behavior as “male” is subjective and imprecise and is a gross generalization that is only used for simplicity and convenience.  Engaging in any one behavior or even any set of behaviors does not make one male, as clearly females can engage in virtually any male behavior and vice versa.  A much more scientific, precise, and objective determination of whether one is male is based on the presence of the XY chromosome, while a determination of whether one is female is based on the presence of the XX chromosome.  To use a particular behavior or set of behaviors as an indicator of an individual’s sex when there is much more powerful evidence such as the individual’s chromosomes is not logical or reasonable.  One does not judge an individual’s age based on their behavior, even though many behaviors are correlated with age just as many behaviors are correlated with sex.  If one has evidence of an individual’s birthdate, that outweighs any evidence of age-related behavior.  The same should be true for sex or gender.

One particularly troubling result of this gender confusion is that some believe that changing from one sex to the other, i.e., undergoing a transgender procedure, is a healthy and reasonable choice to make. First off, maybe medical advances will change this in the future, but as of now even with surgery and hormone therapy one can only resemble the other sex in a superficial manner. The years of brain and body development as the other sex can not be completely, or even mostly, erased. Also, much of the knowledge of how to survive as a member of one’s birth sex will lose its value, and one will have missed out on gaining the corresponding knowledge that members of the other sex developed during youth.

Since one’s physical sexual characteristics at birth are objective and anything but arbitrary, while a culture’s association between an individual’s sex and gender identity may be somewhat subjective and arbitrary, rather than changing the non-arbitrary body to fit with arbitrary and subjective notions about gender identity, it would make far more sense to change the arbitrary and subjective notions about gender identity to fit with the objective characteristics of the body.

But maybe the most compelling reason to condemn this idea is that it distracts and confuses troubled and unhappy individuals and prevents them from focusing on more reasonable means to improve their lives. A further problem is that as the idea gains momentum, it offers another opportunity for individuals to knowingly make behavioral choices that are disfavored by the general society, and then, after claims of discrimination, expect the society to make accommodations for that choice. This is problematic for behavioral choices because humans are quite flexible and adaptable animals, and there are innumerable possible behavioral choices they can make, and social chaos is only prevented, and some degree of social harmony achieved, by limiting that number through societal pressure to restrict apparently unhealthy or arbitrary behavior.



One source of entertainment that I enjoy is science fiction, and so I want to address a popular idea from that genre — time travel.


First off, I am not a physicist and certainly not a quantum physicist, so I cannot speak to issues of time on the quantum or micro level, and I certainly cannot provide educated guesses on whether positrons are merely electrons going back in time or whether dark matter is time-reversed regular matter or any of the other complex issues regarding quantum theory.  Instead I just want to discuss how popular notions of time travel at the macro level of visible objects appear to be nonsensical.

To begin with, characters who time travel in science fiction appear at what seems to be the same space in the different time, but that makes no sense. Everything in space is moving all the time, and so any point in space in the present has no exact corresponding point in the past or future (i.e., a particular place exists only at a particular time). The science fiction writers often use some point on Earth as the point of origin and the destination for the time travel, ignoring that the Earth is continuously moving relative to the Sun and the rest of the universe and that what keeps a non-time-traveling object in place relative to surrounding objects is the totality of all the forces acting on it, including gravity. For the time travel to occur, the object can no longer be subject to those forces, so the object should not respond to any of them, including gravity, and should not remain in the same location. I would guess that the location of the object at a different time, other than the immediate past or future, would be indeterminable. 

Maybe a more fundamental problem for time travel to the past is that the time traveler comes from nothing into something (and a something that is not some simple mass of particles but a very complex life form) at the past time, bootstrapping the time traveler’s own existence in the past time, and then as the time traveler has an effect (think the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory), the time traveler contributes to creating the preconditions for its own existence in the present time. Not only does that violate the fundamental rule that the sum total of mass and energy is constant (at least outside some sort of Big Bang singularity), but it requires a completely predetermined universe where the time traveler has always been part of the past and has always contributed to creating the preconditions for the time traveler’s act in the present to travel to the past.
One other problem is that even though our brains have created this simple concept of human beings as discrete, disconnected objects, human bodies like all other matter are interconnected parts of the environment and contribute to the mass and energy of that environment and so instantaneously removing them would create an instantaneous hole in space, which I believe would have significant repercussions for the surrounding environment, just as instantaneously adding them to the new environment would cause an instantaneous compression of mass around the entry point, which would also have serious repercussions.  Though I do suppose that the proponents of time travel could argue that the addition and subtraction need not be instantaneous.
A related set of problems to those of time travel occur when the protagonist in science fiction travels to a parallel universe that is virtually identical to the protagonist’s universe, at some time in the past, present, or future.  I have several problems with this as well.
First, if the protagonist travels from one to the other, they aren’t completely separate parallel universes, as they obviously can be connected, and are instead probably better viewed as different parts of one mega universe, which leads to the question of how they have managed to remain separate for so long.  
Second, as with time travel, the problem I discussed earlier related to instantaneously adding mass or removing mass from the environment are going to be there when one switches universes.
Third, if the parallel universe is identical, how would the protagonist know that they entered the other one, and what happened to the identical copy of the protagonist in the other one, i.e., did that individual just switch places, and, if so, how would anyone know, including the protagonist? 
Fourth, if it isn’t identical, then how could space and time correspond in such a precise fashion that the individual would cross the boundary to a virtually identical space or time.  If it is the same time, the space would need to be virtually identical, or there would be no way of knowing that the spatial point for entry is appropriate, e.g., not in outer space or in the Earth’s solid mass.  If it is not the same time, for the reasons cited earlier regarding time travel, that the corresponding space of a different time is indeterminable, then the spatial point of entry cannot be known or predicted.
And that’s why I’ve never been a big fan of stories with time travel or travel to parallel universes.


Every action, including every choice by individuals, is part of an infinite chain, with no link necessarily being more or less important than every other link.  The individual in making the choice is both determined and determiner.  The individual, as part of innumerable different chains, evolves into something that emits energy in its own unique way, unknown and unknowable, as each individual has a unique history and organization.  And so the uniqueness of the individual provides a unique link in each chain in which the individual participates that can influence the further evolution of the chain.


Humans evolved in small groups, and these small groups grew, by various means, to become larger and larger groups over the evolution of human civilization.  The path to the development of a large society with sufficient social harmony to be healthy and sustainable has been long and torturous and only was achieved after much experimentation with different rules of social behavior.  Of course the social rules were often crafted primarily for the benefit of elites, but often enough the elites crafting the rules recognized that they would benefit from improving the general welfare of the society, particularly in the societies that survived long term.  Sometimes the rules were found to be inconsistent with general welfare by later generations, or by those leading rebellions in the same generation, and were overturned or modified, but this was always best treated as a delicate process as over time human rules become entangled with the values, belief systems, expectations, and patterns of behavior that are common in the society and which members depend on as they build and maintain the web of human life.

Also, note that moral systems developed in large cooperative groups as a means for regulating the behavior of members of the group for the benefit of the group.  It appears that moral systems developed before writing and before any rules were formally written or enforced as humans evolved the propensity to develop rules, based on feelings towards members of the group, to give the group an advantage.  That implies that the emotional components that often accompany moral rules may have evolved long ago as a means to regulate the behavior.  And that implies that any system of moral rules will increase its efficacy if its development takes into consideration the emotional components of the rules and the extent to which the rules were originally determined solely or mostly by those emotional forces.  And so any system of moral rules which claims to stand merely on “enlightened self-interest” of members of the group is fundamentally lacking.

Related to that, note that in the development of civilization to allow members of a large group to live together in harmony, moral rules were formalized into laws and enforced by a central authority.  These laws were designed to regulate social interactions by making explicit what the limits of acceptable behavior were, and in that sense the laws would dictate morality.  Virtually every law sets limits for legal or acceptable behavior and so virtually every law dictates morality, which makes preposterous the claim that we should not enact laws to dictate morality.

Obviously prohibitions against stealing, murder, slavery, rape, assault, child molestation, drug use, fraud, etc…  are based on shared beliefs about acceptable behavior and so one can make a strong claim that they have a moral basis.  Now, one might argue that there are economically based laws that can be distinguished from morally based laws but that is a false distinction.  Any economic goals must be based on some value system, prioritizing what is more valued in the society over what is less valued, which constitutes a system of morality.

It is not that governments cannot legislate morality, but that sometimes the totality of forces contributing to what is perceived as a social ill that should be addressed is simply too great for the legislative remedy that is prescribed, particularly when those implementing the remedy are not sincere enough, determined enough, or committed enough to devote sufficient resources, which could turn out to be substantial.

One further point that could be made is that those who undergo a certain amount of intellectual development may be able to make moral calculations with regard to contemplated actions, based on the strength of their connections to various groups, such as concentric circles of intimacy (e.g., to self, nuclear family, extended family and friends, nation, human race), that consider degree of connection to affected individuals, probability of success and risk of the action, and benefit or loss to result from the action in order to determine the expected net benefit or cost of the action.  A functioning and healthy society could be composed of such calculating individuals, but only if the great majority of them are able to make such calculations competently.  However, no human society in the past or present has met that criteria as such individuals always appear to comprise only a small percentage of any given population.  So to create a functioning and healthy society it is necessary for the great majority to not try to make such moral calculations and instead to internalize some moral system, ideally created more to serve the general welfare than the interests of elites, that convinces the members of the society to act in most situations in a manner consistent with that moral system.


“Freedom” is an often misused and abused term that has limited usefulness in political analysis. Certainly every political actor acts in accordance with the forces or pressures, internal and external, that are applied to the actor.

The word “freedom” is often used by elites to obfuscate and confuse and to keep the powerless non-elites from joining together to form a government to protect themselves from the predations of the powerful (i.e., “freedom” means the elites have the right to be protected from the possibility that the little people use a government to protect themselves from the elites).  The elites sell the idea of freedom as a substitute for equality as it suggests the equal ability to engage in a wide range of activities, with the implicit assumption that only governmental action would act as a restriction.  However, the lack of financial resources is usually what limits an individual’s ability to engage in various activities.  The elites usually tack on a promise of “equal rights before the law” but this type of equality also is generally subject to the financial limitations of the individual, as it usually requires financial resources to enforce the individual’s legal rights.  Moreover, the most important measure of equality, financial equality, is ignored while every other possible form of equality may be promoted and celebrated, including the equality of different types of behavior regardless of the negative implications for social harmony or for the development of common values and shared goals.

People do value the social freedom that comes from feeling that one is not dominated by other particular individuals in the society.  Through millions of years of evolution, people have developed a sensation of pain, leading to a negative attitude, when they perceive other individual humans to be exerting control over their activities. This is unsurprising, as in the great majority of instances they were being controlled against their own interests, and there was survival value for the individual, and for the individual’s genes through reproduction, in responding negatively to the control.

Some argue that the way to achieve this social freedom is to avoid all analysis, because inherent within any form of analysis is social programming by the elites to control the population.  However, analysis-free thought leads to perceptions or models with no depth, and these are the simplest and therefore the easiest to program.  The deeper the analysis, the more combinations of thoughts that are possible and the more complex the models that are created, such that they could not possibly be pre-programmed.

Also, the individual is a social being and survives and reproduces as part of a human social group, so avoidance of others to achieve the social freedom is not an option.  A balance must be struck, which would involve achieving harmony with others in the social group that the individual belongs to.  Harmony is achieved through agreements on the division of labor (made easier through specialization), and the remuneration that would accompany such (with consideration of the inevitable feelings of alienation and injustice from a wide distribution of income), and the development of common goals based on common values with collaboration on achieving them.

However, it should be noted that social freedom is actually a weak substitute for financial equality.  Equality leads to social freedom, i.e., a lack of domination, but social freedom does not necessarily lead to financial equality.

Note that some elites promote the idea of equality because their self-image requires that they convince themselves that they are “fair” and “support equality” while other elites just recognize that non-elite individuals are more apt to contribute positively to the society if those individuals believe the society is “fair” and offers them a chance to have or aspire to some semblance of social equality.



The idea of “free will” is simply a misconception following from the illusion of pure identity over time, i.e. lack of recognition that we are not exactly the same people we were a moment before. We are all evolving all the time, our neuronal connections are changing, and what we think in any moment is a function of that evolution as prompted both by ongoing chemical changes and by changes induced by input from the external environment. By the time we finish the choice we are a slightly different person from the one who was prompted with the input that leads to the choice. The determinist focuses on the external input to the choice and how it affects the choice and a true believer in “free will” starts with the assumption that the person who finished making the choice is identical to the person before making the choice, before being prompted by the external input that leads to the choice. But it would be a mistake to model it as simple determinism where the input solely determined the choice, as the person at the time of being prompted was a fundamental part of the equation, a very significant participant.

Moreover, the concept became popular and useful during a particular period in the development of human knowledge and related social/cultural development.  The elites of many groups, who preferred to keep the non-elites separate and weak, and who wished to portray themselves as capable and deserving of their elite status, developed a philosophy of individualism and free will and they promoted this philosophy among the population.  The beauty of this philosophy for the elites is that, as the belief that a “God” had ordained the social order began to wane, it justified the continuation of a hierarchical social order with extreme inequality as it implied that: (1) through their own superior ability, work ethic, and the exercise of their free will, they had risen to the top and deserved their elite status and all the benefits that went along with it; and (2) the non-elites were deserving of their low status because of their own failures and decisions from the exercise of their free will, and it would be inappropriate and useless for them to try to understand the social or economic forces that may have contributed to those failures or to join together to change the social order.


The allure of political correctness is that it offers a path toward more civilized, less offensive discourse that ideally would lead to a more harmonious and just society.  However, there is no practicable method for determining the boundaries of speech so that no one would be offended or harmed, and the powerful determine the priorities in deciding what harm should be avoided.  So in practice political correctness tends to stifle the speech of the politically weak or powerless, as preventing transgressions against them are considered of lower priority than preventing offenses against the well-connected and powerful.  So it tends to further empower the elites while  it silences dissent from the powerless.

Also note that in any sphere of human activity that involves interaction with nature, including human nature, models must be used which are of necessity incomplete and approximate.  Nature, and any phenomenon in nature which may be perceived and represented, is of unbounded complexity, and so a model, which is of finite complexity, can always be improved upon.  That is why no social convention, and no opinion regarding optimal human social interaction, should ever be immune from criticism and scrutiny.  Analysis of such conventions, opinions, and behaviors is unbounded in depth, and pat answers are the province of the uneducated and the lazy-minded.

Note that Identity Politics, which has become a significant component of political correctness, divides the common people in an age where technological developments offer the opportunity for them to create common understandings and common values that could lead to the development of a common purpose and create a more healthy and harmonious society.  Those who advocate Identity Politics often claim that sexism can best be fought by dividing the society between the sexes and that racism can best by fought by dividing the society between the races.  But dividing people by sex is sexism at its most fundamental, just as dividing people by race is racism at its most fundamental.

Also, it should be obvious that individuals are multi-dimensional, i.e., each has individual characteristics, some immutable and some not, on the dimensions of sex or gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, talent or intellectual ability, sexuality, religion or spiritual beliefs, age, health, athletic ability, income, personal or family wealth, educational level, profession or job, physical attractiveness, etc… On each of these dimensions, an individual may be advantaged, disadvantaged, or somewhere in between. So to properly determine whether someone is advantaged or privileged overall, one would have to examine the entire list of dimensions and note one’s position in each, but this is rarely done. I suspect what mostly happens is those individuals who are underprivileged overall but who are privileged on the dimensions most often emphasized, i.e., race and sex, pay most of the price of being labeled “privileged,” while those who are actually privileged overall are able to position themselves so they escape the negative consequences. And those who are privileged overall but are considered underprivileged on the emphasized dimensions gain a further advantage from what they already have, and they are often the ones who most enthusiastically promote the scheme.

Note that Nationalist Identity is probably the most defensible type of identity, because nations are somewhat closed systems that can resemble a tribe, or they used to be and can be with functioning borders, where people can work together and provide positive and negative feedback to each other to improve the general welfare, including establishing a functional political system that responds to the needs of all the people. Other forms of Identity Politics which lead to other groupings do not form closed systems at all, and cannot form proper tribes, and so there can be no healthy or functional feedback process to improve the group’s general welfare.

Since Identity Politics, particularly when focused on race and sex, obviously causes more harm than good, it seems likely that the movement to popularize it has been subject to manipulation by malevolent outside actors from the beginning.  Such action would appear to be consistent with the time-honored technique of the powerful — to divide the common people so that they may more easily be subjugated.

Related to this, note that for the past few decades there have been more and more references to a New World Order, or NWO, that describes a global political-economic system many believe will come to power in the next few decades.  It is common to speculate that the NWO will be Marxist in nature, but that appears highly unlikely.  Authentic Marxism means no state and no personal property and no one expects that to happen.  The more realistic efforts to create a Marxist society, like those of the Soviets, involved the creation of a socialist state according to Marxist principles, which involved confiscation of all private property which was then to be used as efficiently as possible by the state to improve the welfare of the people as a whole.  Of course, it never actually worked that way as “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” meaning that those in high positions in government and the well-connected usually received the lion’s share of the benefit.
But the current efforts of elites to establish a NWO do not resemble those of the Bolsheviks in Russia or any other Marxists in history, because such elites have no intention of giving up their property to the state or anyone else.  Instead, they want to empower the state to reshape the society and economy in their interests, using Cultural Marxism, so that they can accumulate even more property.

Globalist elites determined that they could minimize resistance if they could transform the left from a movement organized around the struggle of labor vs. capital, i.e., traditional Marxism, into a movement that would inevitably lead to dividing the little people into warring groups.  So these elites provided support to help create the “New Left,” which is a form of Cultural Marxism (that actually shares some attributes of Mao’s Cultural Revolution), that focuses on the formation of and empowerment of competing political identity groups.  The support was in part direct, but mostly indirect, as the elites provided the New Left with access to mainstream media and the messages, ideas, and values of the New Left were broadly spread, widely promoted, and sometimes even celebrated.  This was all done at the expense of the Pro-Labor Left, which had posed a much greater threat to the political-economic power structure, and over time the New Left supplanted the Pro-Labor Left as the mainstream of the left.

Cultural Marxism, in simplest terms, is the idea that all traditional ideas regarding culture, values, moral systems, and social behaviors should be critically reviewed, and that when they are, they have little justification.  There appears to be an alternative form of it which advocates that virtually all cultures, values, moral systems, and social behaviors are equal unless they involve advocating or engaging in violence.

Now, I’m not using the term “Cultural Marxism” as has been used by others to claim that the Frankfurt School of social theory, which is the source of Critical Theory and much of the new philosophical approaches of the social liberals, is designed to destroy Western civilization, as that seems overbroad and lacking in reason.  Instead, as a result of critically reviewing Critical Theory, I find that certain elites use Critical Theory to advance themselves by tearing down those who would stand in their way.  In our current situation, so-called “intellectuals” whether consciously or unconsciously carry water for, are useful idiots of, certain elites who want to tear down present structures in order to redesign society to serve their own interests.

Hiding behind the egalitarian cover provided by Cultural Marxism, the corporate media promotes radical new social trends and belief systems and encourages the use of Identity Politics and Political Correctness to enforce the new beliefs and trends, which are spread by Taliban-like ideological zealots, often called “Social Justice Warriors,” who act as useful idiots for the elites as they stifle free speech and try to quash dissent among the common people.  These new ways of thinking undermine all traditional beliefs, values, bonds, expectations, and behavior patterns, which helps to make the little people more malleable as it breaks down their resistance to having their lives and their society transformed so as to better align with the interests of the elites.  But what may be more important is that these belief systems atomize society as they create division and social chaos — the little people come to have a wide array of values, beliefs, and perspectives and it becomes impossible for most to agree on important issues and to coalesce to form a strong political force.

These radical beliefs spread under the umbrella of Cultural Marxism not only destroy solidarity among the little people and makes them ineffectual politically, but it also makes them less motivated and less mentally healthy so that they are less productive and often become broken people, as part of a decadent culture producing ignorant, incompetent, impulsive, and irrational citizens with no mooring to any established cultural norms.

The divisions created are problematic over the long term for any human society at a fundamental level.  They not only insulate the elites from any serious challenges to their power, allowing problems to fester and the rise of other abuses that follow from unchallenged power, but more importantly it sets women against men, which can only lead over the long term to social disintegration.  Men and women were designed by evolution to be different pieces of the same puzzle, so that they would fit together with different needs and different abilities to make a harmonious and healthy society that could survive over the long term.   When men and women are convinced that they are competing groups and even enemies, then the myriad of inter-dependencies between the sexes, some known and many unknown, that human societies have depended on for survival throughout their hundreds of thousands of years of evolution are severed, leading to  innumerable unpredictable ripple effects that could very easily cripple the society.

But the globalist elites pushing for a NWO and using this New Left, with its Cultural Marxism radically changing social rules that human societies have depended on to provide for the general welfare for millennia, keep on forging ahead, using an army of idealistic youthful dreamers fantasizing about some impossible Marxist utopia, while the elites have absolutely no intention of creating a Marxist state resembling that of the utopian vision of their useful idiots.  Instead, they want to create a new type of feudalism with their NWO, where the few, including them, have everything, and everyone else has nothing.

The great majority of the population in this envisioned NWO will be somewhat like serfs, though in a sense worse than serfs in that serfs were necessary to tend to the land, while in the future robots with Artificial Intelligence will do the work, and so these new serfs will be redundant and disposable.  Pressure will build among the elites of the NWO to eliminate these serfs, either gradually by preventing reproduction or possibly even immediately through genocide carried out by the robots.
In summary, the NWO will not be Marxist, but will be a new type of feudalism, and one with a very hard edge, making historical feudalism seem kind and caring by comparison. And the useful idiot youthful idealists are inadvertently helping to create this world, thinking they are working for the opposite.