My political views

My political stance is as follows

The world is too fucking complicated, and there is no society in which all problems can be solved by a universal, one-size-fits-all formula. Doctrines and platforms that aim at particular, pre-defined outcomes are dangerous because they ultimately fail at two things at once: their own goal, and the expectations of the people.

To me, one thing all parties in all countries around the world are universally guilty of is this: our political rivals propose a great solution to the problem we're having, but we're going to oppose it because we don't want to give them political credit or boost their popularity and influence.

The only political 'platform' that has a chance to produce both short- and long-term solutions to as many political, economic, social or cultural issues is the skeptical and analytical approach on a case-by-case basis. We look at the problem, we look at all possible solutions regardless of our political affiliations, and we implement the best solution irrespective of which party, person, or group of power it might promote or benefit politically. 

Therefore, my place on the political spectrum is that of a true centrist - that is to say a centrist who wants the best solution for every problem, and doesn't give a flying fuck whether that solution is gonna come from the left or the right as long as it's the best one, or as close to it as we can get.

Criticism of centrism

There are three main arguments against centrism and centrists. These are:

1. Centrists are cowards who don't want to stand up for something and to defend their position;
2. Centrism is basically populism;
3. Centrism does not provide long-term strategies, it's just patching up whatever problem arises without committing to long-term solutions and visions for the future.

Any or all of these points may be true for some people or movements who call themselves centrist, but they are not true of actual TRUE CENTRISM. 

1. Centrism is not cowardice or non-commitment. It's commitment to political solutions and well-being that does not concern itself with political tribalism and partisanship. The football fan who watches the game without rooting for either of the two teams is a centrist; you DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A FAVORITE TEAM IN ORDER TO LOVE THE GAME.
2. Centrism is not populism. Populism is going with the public opinion to appease the masses. Centrism concerns itself with the best possible solution for every problem - and the masses don't always necessarily know what's best for them, or even understand the root of the problem at all. Populists may call themselves centrists, but they are lying, plain and simple.
3. Centrism is committed to the long-term strategy of creating a political, economic, social, and cultural environment that provides the widest possible range of options for dealing with problems and promoting liberty and well-being. The ultimate goal is to be free of any shackles of doctrine, platforming, tribalism, and gradually move out of a partisan model of government altogether. We want a society of free critical thinkers.

My view on Political Correctness and Social Justice

I am against them for a very simple reason: I want equality, freedom, diversity, inclusivity, and tolerance. The PC and SJ movements do not. They work against the very ideals that they claim to support.

Political Correctness means to take the concept of 'correctness', aka doing the right thing, and making it a political tool. Social Justice means taking the concept of 'justice', and making it a tool for tribal warfare. Correctness with a caveat is not true Correctness; and similarly, Justice with a caveat is not actual Justice.

Furthermore, these two concepts are both intrinsically racist and sexist - and I'm not even talking about them being racist and sexist against white people, even though you can make a compelling case for that, too. No, PC and SJ are racist and sexist against women and minorities. Both of these concepts work off of the view that a group of people, e.g. black people, are all the same, that they all feel the same, want the same, think the same, and are in the same position. Truth is, a "group" of people like black people is not a group of anything: it's just PEOPLE - these are individuals with their own thoughts, motives, desires, fears, strengths and weaknesses. Claiming to speak on their behalf as if that would be possible is inherently demeaning and absolutely, undeniably moronic.

And lastly, Western societies have been moving towards promoting and achieving equality, diversity, inclusivity and so on long before PC and SJ appeared. That, to me, is a pretty strong indicator that society as is was already doing the right thing. PC and SJ go against society as is. And if society was already moving in the right direction, and you want to divert it... well, then you're not going in the right direction, now, are you?

Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization... NOT

I'm sick and tired of hearing this piece of ignorance:

Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity.

Oh, yeah? Which part, exactly?

Let's take a look, shall we?

• The State: the concept of equal citizens under one law, legislation, the military apparatus, appointment of government officials, the monetary system, the judicial system - basically ALL functions of a modern nation and its government, administration, politics, and division of responsibilities is Ancient Greek and Roman, and was neither imported into Europe by Jews or Christians nor invented on the basis of the Bible.
• Culture: the arts and their manifestation, fashion, celebrity status, even the porn industry are based on Ancient Greek and Roman models. Court musicians, art exhibits, the theater, public poetry recitals, philosophical debates - these are all pagan, and have existed before and out of the Christian realm, and were neither imported into Europe by Jews or Christians nor invented on the basis of the Bible.
• Morality: the core concepts of cooperation, rules, and common decency in a society are far older than any form of Christianity and have existed long before the Bible. The particular tenets: don't kill, don't steal, respect your neighbor, do your job to get paid, carry yourself in public in accordance with what is deemed appropriate, don't lie - these are all universal and the basis for all modern societies that have evolved before Judeo-Christianity and independently from it. And they have all existed in Europe before and independently from any Christian tradition or norm, as evidenced by Ancient Greek and Roman law, law in the pre-Christian Byzantine Empire, the pagan Bulgarian Khanate, and others. 

               - As for the very details of morality: WHICH rules, WHAT EXACTLY is considered common decency, etc., only a few can be attributed to Christianity and found in the Bible, and most of THESE, while in the Bible, have existed throughout Europe before Christianity.

• Economy: No modern concepts or instruments of economy, labor, and the market are Judeo-Christian. 

So, which part of Western Civilization is Christian, again? The fact that people who were Christian, or claimed to be Christian, did things in non-Christian ways, doesn't make a civilization or society Christian. Christianity didn't give us any of the foundations of modern, or even of Medieval society and civilization. Christianity merely did what Christianity always does: it showed up and appropriated them.

The Evil of Faith

Faith, by definition, requires the absence of evidence. Thus, the prerequisite for faith in a religion or a god is to have no grounds or objective justification for believing at all. Belief in God is, and must be, mere wishful thinking.

Animals have basic needs related to their survival and procreation, and seek instant gratification. Humans have a need that goes beyond that of all other animals: the need for purpose. But finding your purpose is an arduous process and success is not guaranteed. Humanity is, after all, in the infant stages of its intellectual, cultural, and moral lifecycle.

Inventing a purpose for yourself that is based on faith, aka no reason or justification, but rather mere wishful thinking, offers instant gratification and the illusion and comfort of pretending you have a purpose. It’s the intellectual, cultural, and moral reaction of an animal having no concept or regard for anything beyond its own self. The concept of operating on faith takes away the one driving force behind the progress of humanity. A person content with an imaginary purpose stops looking for a real one and holds back others (we don’t live in a bubble, and we are all influenced by others in one way or another).

To those who wish to argue that 1. faith in god can be based on evidence, or 2. that a faith-based purpose can still be truthful, real, useful, my answer is simple: 

1. evidence-based faith isn’t faith, it’s a hypothesis; and so far, all proposed ‘evidence’ for the hypothesis of god has been thoroughly debunked by people and by fields of science concerned with seeking the truth – people and disciplines that would accept tangible evidence for what it is. 
2. there’s no reason to think that (belief requires the absence of reason). And there’s a myriad of reasons not to think that (the moral evil done by religion in the world outweighs the good by far; faith-based purpose has never produced substantial progress; substantial progress has been halted by faith-based purpose on multiple occasions throughout the world’s history; etc. etc. etc. etc.)

Thus, faith in god is, in my opinion, an intellectual, cultural, and moral Evil.