I've noticed over the years that my ideology on life has evolved and grown. For the longest time it was my political ideology that has evolved, but I've found it is my over all ideology, including politics, that has really grown. I try to live my life by reality and objective facts. I want my life to be as a scientist, not as a person that tries to evade reality (ie: religious people, dogmatic people, and even political ideology).

I had to challenge some of my beliefs with regards to multiculturalism and things of that nature. Cultural Relativism is something that his buried deep inside multiculturalism. You find it in left wing people. And you see it less likely in right wing. Yet, I've rarely ever heard a conservative talk about these things and hence why it took so long for me to even challenge myself. And someone that is also a cultural relativist is someone that is also a moral relativist.

Those of you that read this post who are cultural relativists (multiculturalists) will have one word pop into your head: "racist". I'll get into why people feel that way later in this post. I'm not racist. I'm talking about culture, values, ethics and the way people choose to live their life. Something as trivial as your skin pigmentation doesn't determine your culture and if you think it does then you're the racist.

All Cultures/Ideologies/Values Are Equal

This is the axiom hidden deep inside multiculturalism and it's something most people don't see. I never recognized what I was doing for most of my life with this. Are all cultures equal? The objective answer is no. The answer from reality is no. I used to think, who's to say that Western culture is any better than the culture of a tribe in New Guinea.

But is Western culture better than a culture that still sacrifices virgins to their God(s)? Yes. Hell Yes. A culture that sacrifices virgins is primitive, savage, sick, old fashion, stupid, retarded, etc. Is treating women as equals better than the Islamic ideology of treating women as nothing more than property? YES! Women are not property of men and that is the RIGHT ideology.

Are female genital mutilations right or wrong? (A question on moral relativism)

You see where I'm going with all these points. The reality is that there are BETTER ways to live your life. There are BETTER ideologies to follow. And the question really comes down to how much we tolerate variations of this.

Indiscriminants

I know some of you are thinking so what? What's the big deal if a person thinks all cultures are equal? The real issue is how people align themselves inevitably from their cultural relativism. Evan Sayet used the term "indiscriminant" to describe this concept. He's done a few speeches at the Heritage Foundation and I thought the second speech was the best, so here's a link. The video is an hour long, so I'll reiterate the points here that I took away from it.

The cultural relativist tries to evade reality, but it's hard to do. You can't evade the fact that the standard of living in the United States and Israel is far better than the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

Being indiscriminant means that you morally think the act of discrimination based on culture and ideology is wrong (and racist). And that is the main reason why some people will find this post "racist".

This is where the twisted reasoning comes into play. Since the cultural relativist thinks all cultures are equal it must mean that there is some sort of injustice to explain why the United States and Israel are better than these other countries. How else could you explain it if their cultures are equal?

The danger of this way of thinking is that reality has to be explained. And inevitably it involves an act of balancing out the countries. It's the United States and Israel's fault that the Middle East is poor. It's their fault because they stole their oil and land. It's their fault for having bases on Muslim land. Just recently I read a news article that concluded suicide bombings in the Gaza strip were Israel's fault.

What generally happens is that the good or better is put down (slandered) and the bad or evil is elevated. And that's my real issue here.

If you go to vastly multicultural counties (most of Europe), you'll find a disdain hatred of the United States. Why? Because it has to be put down. It's why Bush was called Hitler. American soldiers called Nazis. Guantanamo Bay a death camp. This happens not because American soldiers are Nazis, but because they're fighting people that are actually quite close to being Nazis.

Ron Paul, who I don't think is a multiculturalist but definitely a cultural relativist, thinks that 9/11 was America's fault. He doesn't believe these people were motivated by religious hatred for infidels and thinks America just pushed them too hard. IE: America's fault.

The Promotion of Evil

It isn't enough to put down America. You have to build up the other side. And this is where the whole problem lies. There are very bad cultures moving into our societies and they're spreading. Something that has upset me lately is the Burka and airport security. We live in a country that allows people the right to worship freely, but that doesn't extend anywhere into the lives of others. We have people that think their religious freedom means that they don't have to take off their Burka for airport screening. I'm sorry. You have the right to believe in what you want, but you don't have the right to make us change our screening process because you want to be an oppressed Islamic woman.

But this is what happens. People are fighting for the rights of this "religious minority" and want to help them get the "rights" they deserve.

When the Danish cartoons were published there were riots just about everywhere. It's very easy to see where the cultural relativist would stand on this. They would blame the newspapers for publishing it. They'd blame them for stirring things up or being "racist". They'd blame the government for not helping out this religious minority.

The objective reality of the situation is that free speech was used and they rioted because they didn't like it.

I think the Canadian Human Rights Commissions explain exactly what I'm trying to illustrate with the balancing out of sides. A magazine in Canada published the Danish cartoons and was sued by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It was Ezra Levant with the Western Standard magazine. He has a great blog, so make sure you check it out. He fought for his right to free speech and eventually won after 3 years (and $100,000 in legal fees).

A Muslim man in Quebec wrote a book that stated that homosexuals should be beheaded. Complaints were made and the Human Rights Commission determined there was nothing wrong with it. Why? Because he was of a backward minority and he needed to be helped out. If you're white though, watch out.

Islamism and Western Culture

The thing that makes Western culture different from that of the rest of the world is freedom, democracy and respect. Muslims are immigrating into the Western world because we are prosperous and that leads to a better life. Most people that come here adapt to our culture. It's not a full adaption, but they adapt the idea of free speech, press, democracy, respect, peace, equality between sexes, religious freedom, etc. Most Muslims that immigrate will assimilate to these very important values. That doesn't mean they can't go eat at a Pakistani restaurant or cheer for their home country at the Olympics.

The key here is that you should pick up the important values that make your new country great and for the very reason that you choose to go there. Tolerance of new people is important too. I'm not advocating intolerance for perfectly rational immigrants.

But what many people don't realize is that people are immigrating to the Western world, not because they want to be Americans or Canadian, but because they want to change the culture of the country. The multiculturalist and the cultural relativist is completely blind to the concept of a cultural minority trying to assimilate the majority.

How do you deal with an influx of immigrants that want to change your country? And not change it to make it better, but to change it to something far more primitive?

That is what we're seeing today, especially with Islam. Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, almost introduced sharia law in the province. He almost did it until someone told him to wake up. Literally court rooms that are governed, not by Canadian laws, but by Sharia law.

If you're unfamiliar with Sharia law than you should really read up on it. It's completely incompatible with Western countries. The concept of individual rights, free speech, equality between sexes, privacy, etc don't work under this type of law. And when I say incompatible, I mean if you're gay you will be hanged in the streets. If you're a female that just happens to show your face or body, you're just asking to be raped. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of a country where Sharia law is in place. When a woman is raped, it's her fault. She gets lashed and goes to jail. Old men are marrying 8 year olds.

How tolerant can we be to these ideals? It's not racist or bigoted to oppose this.

Islam is a Totalitarian Ideology

Islam is an ideology and I'm sick of people using the word religion because that usually puts this ideology into an area where you can't criticize or say things that might offend. How come it is perfectly acceptable (and actually expected) to be intolerant of Nazism, yet being intolerant of Islamism and Sharia Law makes you some sort of racist bigot?

If you go deep into the religious books of any religion, you're going to find things that you find sick. The question comes down to the ideology and how it has evolved. Christianity today isn't quite as hard line as it used to be. Sure, they have extreme believers, but for the average person they don't even care that much. They're just trying to live their life as best as they can. And this is true for just about all religions today.

Islam at its root core is a totalitarian ideology, which makes it much different than other religions today. It has a goal to spread over the entire planet. But the other aspect is that Islam and politics are one. Or that is at least their goal.

I try to break up Islam into 4 groups of people.

• The Fundamentalist (Believes everything, is in a Jihad against infidels and is willing to be a religious martyr)
• The Passive-Aggressive Fundamentalist (Believes everything, is in a Jihad against infidels, but isn't going to blow themselves up or be violent. They will use democratic and completely legal means to achieve their objective and be the biggest spreaders of propaganda)
• The Moderate (Believes in the mystic aspects of Islam. They're not in any Jihad or anything like that. They want to rebrand and change Islam to something that is more compatible with Western culture)
• The Average Dude (This is just a person that is Muslim by label. They're not wrapped up in the religion. They probably don't even pray. They're more concerned about living their life)

All of these positions could be applied to just about every religion. And I put them in order of danger. Obviously, I'd like to see all people of any religion fall into the "Average Dude" category. They're the ones that live in reality. I consider most Christians in the United States to fall into the Average Dude category.

The fundamentalist is the extremist. They're the ones that fly planes into buildings and they're the ones that have suicide bombers. They believe in their book so much that they're willing to die for it. The scariest thing about Islam for me is the following statement made by a terrorist:

"We love death more than the infidels love life."

I think most people really have to let that quote marinate into your mind for a few minutes. That is the most dangerous type of ideology. How do you reason with people that love death more than you love life? You can't. And we're seeing this appeasement to terrorists. We're reaching out to them trying to reason with them. The Taliban is currently being negotiated with. Could you imagine how bad the Nazis would of been if they believed in the quote above?

The passive aggressive fundamentalist is the non-violent jihadist. They agree with the goals of the extremists (ie: Islamic totalitarianism and Sharia Law), but they're going to work in a non-violent way to achieve it. I personally think it is this type of group that happens to be much more dangerous than the extremists because they work so well together. I think the best way I've heard this described is that in a game of good cop bad cop, they're the good cops. The extremists are the bad cops. But they're working together for the same goal. You'll find that this group is much more politically active and they play the victim card all the time. Plus they spread most of the propaganda.

The moderate is the person that takes away the mystic side of the religion. Allah gives them meaning, so they're Muslims. They don't believe in all the details, just the "spiritual" side of the religion. I find this to be quite an annoying place for religion. The big issue is that the fundamentalist, passive aggressive fundamentalist and the moderate are all Muslims. And it's one word to describe three different types of people with three different types of goals. And it is the real reason why it is taboo to criticize Islam. These people are obviously better to have in society, but they're almost like a shield for the bad part of Islam.

Moderates are like the people that are trying to make Islam "cool and hip" in modern society. The problem with that is that they're not Muslims and they're not teaching Islam. They're just as big of infidels as I am. The reality is that you can't read the Qur'an and become a moderate. You can only become a fundamentalist (or passive aggressive fundamentalist).

How Many Fundamental (and Passive-Aggressive) Muslims?

The real question people have is how many people fit into the "bad" category for Islam. No one really has a straight answer for this because there is really no poll to take. And if there was a poll, why would anyone answer correctly? The number of violent fundamentalists is a small percentage. But that works out to 12-15 million people at 1%. The real question is how many passive aggressive fundamentalists are there? This number is much larger and scarier.

We have access to election polls in Islamic countries and we can look at how many votes terrorist groups have got.

• Hamas: 42.9% (2006)
• Hezbollah: 10.9% (2005 Nationally), 21% (2004 Municipal Governments)
• Muslim Brotherhood: 20% of Seats ( 2005) *they ran as independents because their party is illegal.

The lowest percentage here is 10.9%. That could mean 120-150 million people. That's a lot. But there are some other polls on specific issues that might actually scare you. A poll done in Palestine found that 55% supported suicide bombings against Israel as a legitimate way to achieve political goals.

I think I'm going to have to do a second part to this post because it is getting way to long. This topic is quite complex and books could be written on it. It's hard to compress this all into a blog post. Make sure you check back for a second part on this.

I'm getting rather annoyed about I keep hearing on television. Economists keep saying that spending is the key to economic growth and it's how we're going to be pushed out of this recession. I'm not denying that spending is part of the economy, but spending inevitably falls under supply and demand. It naturally gravitates to a balance and I think people are missing that.

The main thing that annoys me is that people like Robert Rice and other economists keep saying if the government cuts taxes, bails out the people, gives refund checks that people would save their money or pay off debt. OH THE TRAGEDY!!!! The horrors of saving your money. Oh no!! Paying off your debt. That's treason!!!

There needs to be a balance between capital and spending. Saving your money, paying off debt, investing all falls under the category of capital. Spending is when you consume. Obviously a business will do better if more people buy, but there needs to be capital too. You can't make loans, without capital. You can't make investments without capital.

Americans have been spending way too much and saving too little. Like, this is an undisputed fact. The fact that saving rates have been growing is good. The fact that people are taking any extra money and paying off their debt is good. If you want a credit crisis to be fixed, let people pay off their debt, let people save money. The more capital a bank has, the more money they can lend.

Obviously the government just wants to spend because that's what the government does best. Government spending will never fix this problem. Money that the government spends comes from someone else. The money leaves the economy and comes to them as tax or the money leaves the economy and comes to them as purchased bonds. There's no net gain, just a distortion between capital and spending.

I'm sure I'll get a typical response like "well what would you do?" It's suddenly implied that something must be done. The market is correcting itself from a distortion and that's what has to happen. No amount of spending will change that. When the correction is finished, the economy will be able to get back to business. Cutting taxes would help, but it's not going to change much. The correction will still need to occur.

The only remedy for this problem... is time.

I really wanted to mix a little science and politics today. I'm very passionate about this issue because I am an electrical engineer and I did major in power systems. I've had the chance to study, design and work with the "renewable energy" sources that are so hyped by the government. Well, are wind turbines good enough? I would argue no.

Everyone that reads my blog is always suspicious about my motives since I'm a capitalist and obviously wouldn't support such things. With all the subsidies and slimy businesses involved with the government to produce this stuff, it should be enough to make my point, but I'm going to talk to you about the realities.

When I hear Obama talk about solar panels and wind generators, I think he's talking about this new utopia. The talk that we can get off foreign oil and things like this make me laugh.

Wind turbines produce power, but they're just not good enough and here is why...

Space - The amount of space that is required to generate a sufficient amount of power is massive. I don't think people understand the gravity of how much space is required. You need tens if not hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to generate the same amount of power as a single nuclear power plant. This means that huge portions of land (or water) have to be used.

Man Power - Wind turbines require maintenance. The need for millions of people to do all this maintenance will be needed. Let me repeat that... millions of people to do the maintenance.

Doesn't Follow Load - Wind turbines will never become a significant electricity source because they are unable to follow the load of the grid. Nuclear can follow the grid, gas can follow the grid, coal can follow the grid, dams follow the grid. Wind turbines can't because you have to take what you get. If the wind is blowing 30km/hr, that's what you get.

Essentially all power generation (besides the solar panel) is based on a rotors. Wind turbines, nuclear power, dam power, etc is all done through spinning a rotor. This rotor will have magnets on it. When you rotate a magnetic field around wires, you'll generate a current (ie: electricity).

For the sake of efficiency and cost, you want to have less rotors. Rotors are physically moving parts and they will break. Anything that moves will break. Anything that breaks will need to be fixed and undergo maintenance. The less rotors, the better.

That means we need to find a solution where we can produce more power with less revolutions of a rotor.

Nuclear power is by far the superior option. It's safe (despite what ignorant idiots would tell you). A single nuclear plant will have maybe 4 or 8 rotors and power a lot of cities. You'll need hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to produce the same power.

Doing maintenance on 4 to 8 rotors in a single building is a lot cheaper than doing maintenance to 100,000 rotors stretched over 1000's of acres.

----

I'm sure with me making this post that I'll get some very ignorant replies from people telling me I'm wrong. They won't have engineering degrees or know anything about what they're talking about, but I'll get them. Some people have been so indoctrinated by this that they can't accept the fact that it could be bad technology.

There are two types of people that scare me; those that are really into their religion and those that are into the communist/socialist ideology. People often view the religious right as a polar opposite of communism. We have people on one side voting conservative and people on the other side voting liberal. Both hate each other with a passion and would be offended by being linked to the other group. That's what I'm going to do.

Communism and the religious right both have a philosophy for which they live their lives and view the world. Behind that philosophy comes the concept of values and morality, which both contain. All these beliefs, views, political stances are defined on the values and morality (right and wrong).

At this point you see absolutely no similarities, but it isn't until you look at the core of the philosophies that you can truly understand the nature of both these beasts.

Sacrificing The Individual

Both of these groups believe (at the core) that sacrificing the individual is what needs to be done. Value and morality all come from the sacrifice of the individual.

Communists believe that the individual must sacrifice themselves to the "common good". From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs is derived from self sacrifice. Essentially the "common good" is God and you must sacrifice yourself to God to be a moral person.

The religious right believe that the individual must sacrifice themselves to the "will of God". This is where the concept of "social conservatism" comes from. It has nothing to do with the conservative philosophy itself, it is a branch of religious belief working with government to sacrifice the individual.

Self Sacrifice

Self Sacrifice is the goal of both groups. The communist utopia is a government-less place. There is no government there forcing you to sacrifice yourself to the "common good". For it to work, you must want to do it.

The religious right probably wouldn't fear the communist utopia if they could worship God. It would be their perfect society too. They could sacrifice their well being to other people. They could work for the well being of others, donate money to charities and attack those that dare put their self-interest first.

Self Sacrifice is a feeling created inside people through guilt and fear. A communist would say "how dare you spend your pay check on yourself when people are suffering?" The religious right would say "how dare you spend your pay check on yourself without giving to your fellow man? You'll be going to Hell, soon enough."

Forced Sacrifice

We live in the society of forced sacrifice. Through government, the religious right and communists run their agenda on people. We pay taxes while money is moved from those of ability, to those with needs. Homosexuals are denied the same contractual rights as heterosexuals.

The individual is constantly under assault.

The Morality is Altruism

I'm going to define this as a religion and it does encompass both groups. This is a moral view that the individual must be selfless, must put themselves second to the will of others.

Charity and welfare are the same things, except the religious right like charity and the communists like welfare. Each one defines value and goodness from an individuals ability to sacrifice to another.

...But Isn't Giving Good?

Why is giving good? Most of us accept at face value that giving is good and self sacrifice is a virtue. We're taught that from childhood. Have you actually asked why?

Why is it moral to not consume for yourself and let someone else consume on your labor?

Why is it moral to sacrifice the productive to the unproductive?

Why is it moral to put your self-interest below someone elses?

There is an inherent contradiction in this morality, which makes it moot. It's moral to give to someone else, who will use it for their own self-interest, but if you don't give and use it for your own self-interest - you're sinning (you're greedy, piggish).

I don't expect to get through to communists because from what I understand with interacting with them is that they don't have a concept of morality (right and wrong) or a concept of rights and things of this nature. They sacrificed themselves to the "common good" along time ago.

I don't expect to get through to the religious right either since they've sacrificed themselves to God along time ago.

I just wanted both of you to know that you walk hand-in-hand in the destruction of the individual. And even though you view yourselves as opposites, you actually believe in the same things, just not the same methods.