ABL Political Spectrum (Political Compass) Civilisation basis

Political Spectrum (Political Compass) Civilisation base:


* This spectrum refers to the following resources:
- The Political Compass dot org
- Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World
- The Pournelle Political Axes
- Redefining the Political Spectrum - The Rational Spectrum

- Economic Political Spectrum Part 1: Big/Small Government no longer matters
- Economic Political Spectrum Part 2: Rationality and Proactivism
- Economic Political Spectrum Part 3: Not the parties, it is matter of civilisations










My support for monarchy depends on the demand for it. Please take a look at my algebra following Jeremy Bentham written in Fragment on Government:

When the strength of monarchy is demanded, then the monarchy should be supplied. By means of my understanding, since this world became globalised, the strength of monarchy has been less significantly demanded due to the development of the world diplomacy based on commerce rather than military might and tribunal identity.

The globalisation of the world socioeconomics has provided the opportunity to remove monachism and its cost in this world.

-

The most remarkable characteristics of socialism I mostly disagree with socialism is that it does not take the consequence into their account so much. These socialists always put emphasis on their ideal and how valid and moral their action is. However, these socialists are really reluctant to think of the resource limitation, human and government nature to be corrupted, and preservation of the high culture.

The aristocracy mentioned in my article and Bentham's Fragment includes oligarchy, bureaucrats, elites, and technocratically elected ones. Even in Aristotle's politics, Aristocracy was mentioned as a particular cohort of chosen members in charge of major political roles. So, it does not always mean to be inherited. Even though they are inherited, regardless of whether supporting or being against it, aristocrats are more likely to be able to be in the environment which they can have a plenty time and their family support to obtain the intelligence and the wisdom especially in a civilisation where the resource able to be distributed is limited and commoners are little educated and little cultured. (Davis & Moore, the sociologists, mentioned that meritocracy is simply the matter of functioning, and the inheritance should be accepted as long as it is the optimum choice. But, Davis & Moore also argued that the democratic base of meritocracy is superior to the inheritance base when a socioeconomic structure can afford)

As same as Rousseau described, I really think that democracy (in particular, the direct democracy) is a privilege, rather than a condition, for a civilisation where majority of citizens are enlightened and a plenty capital/wealth is accumulated. Thus, Capitalism, the most effective form to accumulate capital, and a strong individualism are the condition to succeed in establishing a democracy. Socialism (Anti-capitalist collectivism and a strong cultural collectivism neglecting individualism) cannot be compatible with democracy in a long run.

--

Actually I have no mercy for anyone including both the poor mobs and the privileged aristocrats. What I care is how they deserve for myself. As long as the system allows me to enjoy the pleasure and the reward with the expense of exchange, I appreciate the system regardless of their moral stance anyway. The ideal system will never be accomplish-able due to the resource limitation and the human nature. It is unfortunate but unavoidable to save these miserable people, and some rich enjoy their excess wealth. Only the way to challenge against the structure is the power. But, does the alternative structure after this replacement process guarantee my well-being? I do not want to bet for such a risky game any way. I am stick to my own cause and belief, and aspire to make myself be appreciated and rewarded in this world even though it does not 100% guarantee my competence to be acknowledged.


---- Added on 3rd Aug., 2015 ---
civilisation is developed through experiencing a tribal first (For an ethnic and family establishment) and a secular autocracy as a developmental dictatorship i.e. technocracy. Afterward, the decentralisation taking place after the material development becomes less required. At the final stage, I expect the most enlightened one reaches to the self-autonomic state. All stages have their own advantages and disadvantages. I simply want to expect for an unknown ideal, described as the top edge of this diagram chart.

Anti Darwinian Evolution Theory: Not the Creation theorist view

Being against Darwinian evolution theory does not always imply supporting the creation theory. My view, influenced by the ecological niche theory, certainly admitted that all creatures are biologically related to each other, and humans were the modified from apes. It suggests to be sceptical about calling this modification process as "evolution", and disagrees with the theory explaining the difference of our characteristics is mainly determined by gene.

The fundamental problem of Darwinian evolution theory is that it largely ignores the societal impacts on forming creatures' characteristics. The hypothesis of my supporting theory is that the ancestors of human-beings were "accidentally" modified from apes rather than naturally evolved. Unlike the evolution theory regards, my supporting alternative perspective hypothesises that our ancestors were discriminated from apes because they were seen as defected rather than evolved.

Darwinian evolution theory regards human-beings were gradually evolved from apes so that the DNA component is only slightly different between humans and apes. By contrast, my supporting alternative theory emphasises that the DNA is not quite important to make the big difference of creatures. The important factor of distinguishing the characteristics and the quality of creatures is "niche", the separation. My hypothesis is that, even though there are two creatures whose DNA component is completely same with each other, these creatures turn up to be the completely different kinds of creature from each other when they are brought up with in the completely different living environment.


Furthermore, the modification, defined to be the evolution by Darwinism, takes place in order to win in the survival competition, and majority of this gene group welcomes this modification process. Nevertheless, this perspective offered by the evolution theory encounters with two following contradictions.

Firstly, the evolution theory fails to explain that many historically remarkable figures called "genius" suffer from some biological defect. These individuals are endowed with special ability and talent which is superior to what the other majority have. Some researchers who specialise in both biology ans psychology discovered that a part of the brain function becomes stronger than the other parts when a brain is defective. Then, these researchers explained that majority of the genius persons such as Da Vinci, Edison, and Einstein are severe handicapped. These figures became remarkable because they could use their very unique strong ability to compensate their defecting abilities which ordinary human-beings have got.

Secondly, the world social structure cannot be explained by the evolution theory. By means of Mendelian inheritance theory, the White Caucasians are composed of the inferior DNA. But, these White Caucasians are the dominant ethnicity in this world now. Some researchers claim that Mongolians were born as the outcome of Down syndrome (Remember that this used to be called Mongolian syndrome). But, these Mongolians recorded the highest average IQ among all ethnic groups. Therefore, the DNA theory and the evolution theories are mislead to explain about our world socio-biological structure...!

Thomas Malthus, one of British Classical Economists, argued that the evolution makes some characteristics better off by worsening other good characteristics off. If humans were evolved from apes, we can recognise that the physical strength of apes is certainly superior to humans'. When we compare different human races, each human race has got its own unique strength and weakness so that we are neither superior nor inferior to the others; we are just different.

When one individual human survives and become superior to the others in the competition among all humans, Darwinian evolution theorists tend to call this individual human as the superior one or the evolved one. But, owing to the two problems in the evolution mentioned previously, this does not seem to be a right expression to explain about how the unique remarkable human-beings, such as those called the genius, and the different types of human-being are born. The superior/evolved humans explained by the evolution theory are not those who are modified from all the other human-beings. Those who survive and win in the competition of the already existing living environment without being discriminated/isolated/distinguished from the others are not modified from the others; They become superior to the others because they are not different from all the others. If they are significantly different from all the others, then they will be rather discriminated/isolated/distinguished from this human community.


Generally speaking, all creatures are feared of the difference especially when they live in the community where individualism is hardly tolerated. Almost all remarkable figures called genius are from the Western civilisation where the individual difference is highly tolerated. But, these "genius" experienced a very tough life. These genius were not the winner of the "competition"; they could take advantage of their strength because they lived, thought, and acted differently from the others. Furthermore, even in the Western civilisation, it has become very tough for many potential genius to become famous because this world requires humans to become more homogeneous than the past, and also requires humans to compete among all the others with this condition.

The biological modification takes place when they are excluded (discriminated/isolated/distinguished) from all the others. Humans are the modified creatures from apes; humans were "not evolved" from apes. The modified individual (Whom Darwinian evolution theorists call "The evolved ones") will not be those who are thriving well in harmony with all the others: What Darwinian evolution theorists call the evolved ones shall be those who are discriminated, isolated, and/or seen as an eccentric!

My commoent on Ayn Rand on Communism and Socialism

The reason why I admire Ayn Rand is not only because of her ethics/political-philosophy but also her metaphysics theory.

Ms. Rand highly accused of their philosophy more than their actual politics. She praised their consistency and aspiration at least. She accused the common characteristics of the "modern philosophy" like German Idealism most notably Kant and Hegel. She pointed out that the common characteristics of all the modern philosophical theories are that they regard highly of focusing on non-existent abstract beings and highly neglecting the reality. So, this characteristics induces individuals to suffer from a sickness of escaping from reality.


As a matter of fact, I do not quite agree with Libertarianism because it is based on the similar or possibly the same metaphysics as socialism and communism, the late modern school of philosophy. The modern ethics like not only socialism, communism, nationalism, and fascism but also classical anarchism and libertarianism contain the same disease.

These modern philosophies indoctrinate individuals to unconditionally think that their action ultimately based on their ideal can transform their reality. These political philosophies actually enslave the mind of men as a spiritual totalitarian like Sartre and Kierkegaard described! These political philosophies preoccupy men's mind too much with pursuing their ideal and keep them away from enjoying their life in the reality!!


In regard to the definition and my opinion about Communism and Socialism (Not as a political faction; As a political philosophical theory), the main reason why I disagree with Communism is that it is pretty much based on Hegelian metaphysics: Communism is regarded as the second most evolved synthesis before evolving into an Utopia/Heaven. By means of the theory, Socialism equally distributes to people within a limited amount of resources, and Communism unconditionally equally gives people away what they deserve.

Ms. Rand highly accused of their philosophy more than their actual politics. She praised their consistency and aspiration at least. What she really wanted to contradict was the fundamental root of these politics rather than ranting on these individuals participating into these modern politics.

The Irony of Fate 2: A Sequel of the famous Russian New Year Tradition Movie

It has become my new year eve tradition to watch this fabulous Russian traditional movie since my friend from Russian speaking country introduced it to me!
It's definitely worth off for everyone to watch it because it certainly makes us happier whenever we watch this movie on the new year eve day every year!

I introduced the original "The Irony of Fate" last year. This year, I also would like to show there is "The Irony of Fate 2: A Sequel of the famous Russian New Year Tradition Movie"

This movie was created after the USSR collapsed and the new Russian federal republic was established. Even though the time has passed, and Russia has been transformed, this movie succeeded in taking over the great quality from the original one. is also a wonderful movie which not only entertains us but also philosophically enlighten us with the unique Russian humour and wisdom as same as the original. It's also nice to see the reunion of Zhenya and Nadia when they became elderly. Their heart is still burning young!

Nonetheless, although the second series is very good, it is never able to beat the first series! The first series is so legend that we tend to doubt about whether such a legendary entertainment can be ever created again nowadays or a future....
I would love all people to watch the first series of The Irony of Fate: Russian New Year Tradition Movie and then also love to watch The Irony of Fate 2: A Sequel of the famous Russian New Year Tradition Movie. I am not sure if we have got enough time to finish watching both of them because we have already not got much time to catch up welcoming this coming new year...! Hurry up to watch these smashing nice movies!!!


*The following article is that I wrote last year:



This is the movie strongly recommended by my female friend from a Russian speaking country.

According to her, almost all Russian speaking people watch this movie in the night between the new year eve and the new year day. The reason why this movie is popular is that watching this movie before the new year comes makes people really happy, content, pleased, and entertained, and happily welcome the new year.

This movie is a love romance movie which contains Russian humours. Russian humours are quite unique. We see the humours from experiencing a little bit of pains in a funny incidence. Russian people seem to know how to laugh at unexpected incidences with some pains. We can see a strong pleasing humour from their natural ability to overcome any unexpected incidence and always expect a better outcome afterward by making fun of it instead of remaining the pain hurting them.

This also involves a secret rhetoric to criticise the extravagant USSR administration by using an example of their housing development plan. The great ability of Russian film makers is that they produced a love romance movie which does not look like harshly criticing the USSR administration. They simply made a fun of the negative influence of the administration in the Russian humours! The USSR government official would have never felt being criticised at all, and they would have simply enjoyed seeing the funny humour and unique charming personalities of the characters in this story!

This love romance is so diffrent from cheesy movies which always show provocative sex scenes in order to attract mobs to watch. This Russian movie is a traditional love romance which shows having experiencing dilemas and struggles to acquire a loving relationship with each other. Unlike the films shown nowadays, this Russian movie expresses the complicated feelings these young adults face, and how this complication developed their romantic mood. The story in this movie takes place in the contemporary time when majority of young adults still had a naive attitude toward loving relationship. This story may make young adults, and even teenagers, nowadays think these young adults in this story are too naive and jevenile. Nowadays, the romance these characters in this story experience seems to no longer exist so that some young generations may find difficult or even impossible to understand the meaning of the love of these characters in this story. However, I am happy to introduce these young generations to watch this movie as well.

This is educational to learn that openness of sexual relationship and having a big love romance are different from each other. At the contemporary period, people might not have been to flexible to express their emortion to each other unlike nowadays. These contemporary people have struggles in expressing their emortions and then suffer from dilema and regrets more than those nowadays. I do not mean the feeling and attitude toward love nowadays is faded. In fact, I embrace the flexibility and openness of expressing love, by means of physically and mentally, nowadays, and detest the reluctancy on expressing love in the old days. Nevertheless, the feeling of romance becomes bigger when the obstacle of expressing and/or obtaining love becomes bigger. Therefore, in this movie, we can discover the love romance which grows in the sorrow, the struggle, and the achievement after overcoming the reluctancy and the obstacle in the old day men&women relationship!!


Well, I hope everyone enjoys watching this video. This is a really good asset of people having lived in the communist Russia period! Click the following link to go to the website to watch "The Irony of Fate"!!

* Russian New Year Tradition Movie:
- The Irony Of Fate
http://video.kylekeeton.com/2008/12/russian-video-new-year-tradition-movie.html





* The image of this picture is from http://darim.info/59870-ironiya-sudby-ili-s-legkim-parom-saundtreki.html.

Environmentalism is based on Marxism which is the new Communism!

First of all, the environmental cost can be accountable without the tax system and the government censorship. As long as citizens have a voice to reflect their opinion, they are able to claim for the compensation when their living environment is threatened to be polluted. Therefore, the cost of capitalists is too high to build these highly pollutant electric plants. The problem of pollution by these electric power plants often occurs in non-capitalist countries such as immature LDCs and state socialist countries where free trade is discouraged. We must remember that, in many countries which follow capitalism, there are many citizens protesting against the renewable power plants because they are pollutant. They do not protest because of their short term profit; they protest for their living environment. Capitalism regards highly of not only about the interests of capitalists but also the citizens' liberty and right such as property right, freedom of choice, and free trade. When you recommend introducing more renewable power plants under the name of environmental protection, this certainly kills the great admirable characteristics and quality of capitalism!

---

We must be warned of the fact that Environmentalism is based on Marxism, and therefore Environmentalism is the new form of Communism. The remarkable characteristics is that Environmentalism applies the Surplus-Value theory to environment instead of proletariat. Both environmentalism and communism regard that the engine of capitalism is exploiting the high supply of these exploitable substances. However, these ideologies based on Marxism involves a critical misunderstanding of market mechanism (Capitalism).

Capitalism (that is what they call as the antithesis of their own theory) regards highly of "Property Right" based on the "Equity". When proletariat are exploited enough, their purchasing power goes down, and then the entire market stagnate so that bourgeoisie make a loss as well. Furthermore, proletariat also reject working under an exploiting wage (Decline in the supply, the real wage goes up).

When environments are exploited enough, it eventually causes either the extinction of them (Decline in the supply, the real cost goes up) or protests from the property owners as long as they are capitalist minded. Capitalism actually improved both commoners' freedom of choice and the environmental protection under the property right and the equity law.

Pre-capitalist world was much more exploiting environments because they could forcibly extract the natural resource without any equitable contract. When we learn history, we know that the amount of forests disappeared was really big in Feudalism which cannot compared with capitalism.

In addition, the irony of socialist states (What communists achieved to establish (Communist states have never accomplished yet and will never)) is that, even though they promised to protect proletariat's living standard under the collective planning, they exploited these proletariat more than capitalism does.

I predict that, because Environmentalism is plotting to install the collective economy to control usage of environment, abolition of individual freedom choice and property right under the equity will definitely cause the unintentional environmental destruction like those seen in the former ex-Communists' socialist states.

The political actions based on any hypocritical motivation controlling economy is dangerous. The best way to protect the environment is to let individual property owners (All of us are entitled to have a property any way under Classical-Liberalsm=Capitalism) have a freedom of choice and property rights, and trade each other under the agreeable and equitable value. The free market mechanism based on the law of gravity naturally adjust the distribution and the resource reserve to the optimum level.


-----
* Note about Renewable energy power plants:

The renewables are not only cost inefficient but also very pollutant. The process to build both wind firm and solar panel excretes a very high pollutant. The worst energy source is the window firm. The silent noise wave from it reaches very far away to cause the mental disease of people living within its noise pollution radius. Solar panel requires very high maintenance cost to keep the panel not damaged. Both of these renewables cannot supply the electric supply at a stable pace. Both Wind Firm and Solar Panel also exploit huge land mass, and destroy not only the scenery but also plants and animal living there. As a total, in terms of both the pollution and the efficient and stable electric supply, thermal electric power plants are still rather relatively environmentally friendly.

* Solar Power:
The problem of solar power is that it dramatically goes down when it passes through the atmospheric layer surrounding the earth. So, when it reaches to the earth the power concentration is very low and never enough to improve the efficiency of absorbing the electric power. Therefore, the huge land mass is still required so that the maintenance cost per mirror and the inspection cost per hour are always very expensive. Also, due to this fact, solar power assisted vehicles will not be evolved more than a small scale usage. If we really want to use the solar power as an alternative electric power supplier, we should consider inventing the microwave power plant, which directly transfer the solar power electricity received by the solar panels launched into the orbit from the outer space to inside the atmosphere. This technology is still not yet put into practice, but taken into the consideration. This method at least does not waste the precious resources, land mass, and maintenance cost and time as much as the solar panels on the ground in the atmosphere. Although receiving from the outer space to transfer to the ground as the microwave still involves a risk of missing the target which the microwave reaches at, its efficiency of supply electric power is tremendously higher than receiving the solar power in inside the atmosphere.

* Wind farm:
The noise I mentioned was not the hear-able noise: I mentioned about the silent/ignored noise pollution. You know that the noise has vibration? This silent vibration causes the health disfunction such as mental disease. Speaking of the pollution produced for their construction, well they might be able to minimise the pollutant materials used for building these wind farms, but we never know how many R&D is required for how long. While they are tackling with minimising all these external costs and keep replacing the already tested models with the newest models, a ton of resources, the replacement costs, and the time consumed on the project can be wasted. Before inventing the newest semi-perfect environmentally friendly wind farms, they may run out all the natural resources, causes so many times of replacements and new constructions which create the air and land pollution, and increase the victim of the silent/ignored noise pollution. The wind firm is the least efficient way of electric supply. Just building 1 square kilometre thermal power plant in a remote area is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than building several square kilometres of a bunch of eyesore wind farms.

All in all, at least, I am against the renewable as the "primary" electric supplier. Well, I don't mind as the auxiliary.

Critique of Rawlsian (Kantian) Rational Secularism

The problem of Rawlsian rational secularism is that it has been existing only for a few centuries meanwhile the other big religions I mentioned have been existing for millenniums. So, even though Rawls puts emphasis on the neutrality and the rational logic of his rational secularism, it cannot defeat the wisdom and the emotional and spiritual inspiration of these big traditional religions. Furthermore, his neutrality is questionable because how can we determine what is neutral? Then, we can see that Rawls has failed into the trap of the moral universalists' hypocrisy. Even though Rawls promotes the pluralism, his pluralism only exists under the dominance of his rational secularism, the Godless monotheism. I would rather support his disagreeing Modus-Vivendi state where none determines which religion (including the modern secularism) is the mainstream.

Unlike Rawls, I support the state of Modus Vivendi in which various believes are still confronting each other but having stopped fighting together. In Modus-Vivendi, there are two or a few more big religions are competing each other for the religious dominance. This method creates an oligopoly of religious believes rather than the monopoly by one. Thus, these groups eventually improve their belief system in order to attract more followers to join. This Modus-Vivendi situation also prevents cults which are the small religious groups. As the competition among big religious groups is already intense enough to prevent the new entrant of these cults into the market of religion, then cults will be eventually expelled out.

British Industrialisation and the development of the rest of Europe were successful due to this Modus-Vivendi state which Rawls criticised. The competition among various few big religious groups encouraged the intellectual, mental, and spiritual growth in these areas in Europe from 16th century to 19th century. I highly condemn the rise in the intense modern Western secularism in 20th century which monopolised the belief system in our world. The modern secularism should prevail if it is demanded, but it should not monopolise individuals' belief.

I believe the moral is relative across different time. place, and occasion. So, if the culture code of a civilisation requires secularism to be a secularism, then the public sphere shall be secular. The separation of Church and state is not mandate: this is the choice for a particular civilisation. So, some civilisations at a certain time period adapt (Roman or Anglo) Catholicism, Orthodox, Judaism, or Calvin or Luther Protestant as a mainstream public belief. These religions provide individual citizens with a moderate and civil religious codes.

My admiring Max Stirner, the father of individual anarchism, highly criticised (Modern Western) Secularism as a form of Monotheism. So, he warned on the danger of the modern secularism dictating individuals' belief.



Emancipation from the veil of ignorance is impossible because we human-beings are constantly suffering from ignorance. In addition, we have never known what is an ultimate right choice in our life. So then, the freedom of choice prevails. Freedom of choice gives us the chance to try finding the right way of life depending on the situation given in different time, place, and occasion. Rawlsian way of life is too restrictive to trust individuals' decision.

Rawls also ignores how individuals are motivated to live. We do not live to pursue the ultimate universal truth; We live for our reason to become happy. Regardless of the expected outcomes, we live with our own reason. Rawls is sceptical about reasons because reasons can be biased by our own subjective prejudice. But, we do neither have enough time to research about the ultimate truth nor want anyone to teach what is the absolute necessity we should pursue in our life. The world is constantly changing so that the effort of our ability is too slow to catch up with chasing the absolute truth. Hence, the ignorance always constantly haunting us.