Daily Archives: July 21, 2012

Lousy Life or Happy Death? Which to Choose?

Jake writes:

Now about the Dravidians and my Nazi like comments, I know it sounds extreme to say they should be dead. I was arguing with Steve about this but given that through centuries of social and biological engineering through this “Indian” culture, some of these people are socially excluded from a lot of spheres in life and don’t have the ability to compete with other groups when in terms of creating and having a “happy life”.

They face exclusion from every society they go to and the only way they can leverage society towards them is to breed in massive numbers or resort to aggregate behavior where the host society is affected to be focused towards them. So really their entire life is a battle and involves eternal misery/suffering.

Don’t you really think it would have been wise if they didn’t exist and instead went to history along with every other group that was absorbed/destroyed through wars, migrations and conquests?

I will always take existence over nonexistence and life over death. Even a very miserable life is preferable to death, but then I am not suicidal.

I have experienced quite a bit of what others would call total misery, and I even learned to like it or at least live with it. OCD in a way is Hell on Earth, and we just learn to live with it. There are some people who have looked at my life and said, “How can he not be depressed? Look at his life?” But at the time I was not depressed at all. In fact I was quite happy.

Even a crappy life has some value to me. I am not one who expects life to be wonderful and an endless bowl of cherries. To exist at all in at least a halfway decent life is good enough and trumps death and nullification of all in every sense.

18 Comments

Filed under Philosophy

Pedophilia Versus POCD Redux

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve had pure O my whole life. As a child it was both religion and contamination related. As I got older it turned into health and contamination related. (I became an atheist and stopped caring about intrusive anti-religious thoughts.)

But here’s where it gets a little tricky. When I was 10 years old and just discovering my sexuality, I noticed that I especially had a fondness for girls who were 5-7 years old. I knew this was much different than others my age, and felt quite guilty about it. I was also attracted to 10 year olds, however.

As I got older, every time I saw a cute little girl, I would avert my eyes and repeat to myself in my mind “I’m not a pedophile, I’m NOT a pedophile.” It felt very much like the intrusive thoughts from my OCD and happened constantly. This continued until around 16 years old.

At this point, I became interested in anime and the primary school aged characters in these shows. I talked to others who were interested in animated little girl characters also. At this point, I was still having intrusive thoughts, but being interested in the fictional characters didn’t bother me at all.

And then, in the same places where I was discussing these fictional characters, people would also often post pictures of elementary school girl models and actresses. I began masturbating to these photographs, but every time I would feel immensely guilty and hate myself for it.

Awhile later, I met a 6 year old girl. She began visiting us often. I just fell in love. In no other time in my life had I felt this way before. She was a joy to be around and extremely beautiful. We became very close, and I cared for her more than anything. After meeting her, all intrusive thoughts stopped and I accepted my attraction as normal for me.

I’m now in the my early 20s, and have very little interest in women. The pedophilic intrusive thoughts are no longer there, only the ones based on health worries and contamination remain.

I do have sexual thoughts about young girls, but I see them as normal for me now. Although when I see a cute girl that I’m interested in, it’s closer to crushing than lust. “Oh wow, she’s so beautiful.” The girls that I tend to like are between the ages of 5 and 11. They are just so cute.

Now, based on this information, do you think I have a pedophilic orientation? Or do you think it’s possible that I had POCD and just gave up fighting it?

A few things to consider: I would never touch a girl, I know it’s wrong.

It also has nothing to do with being dominant. I actually find the idea of dominating a young girl extremely disgusting.

It also is not only physical, I am extremely attracted to the personalities of very young girls, and just hanging out and playing games with them have been the best experiences I’ve ever had in my life.

This is a fascinating post. It shows that someone can have both OCD and pedophilia, so the notion that OCD’ers are too good or too moral to develop pedophilia is not correct.

Pedophilia in my opinion is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. It can’t be much changed like any of those. There are countless gay and bisexual OCD’ers. I know because I have talked to many of them. Surely there must be some OCD’ers with a pedophilic orientation.

It’s probably better for a pedophile to have OCD than to not have it. The OCD pedophile will be a lot less likely to act on his urges due to his extreme morality, guilt and conscientiousness. The OCD will act as an inhibitor towards acting on the pedophilia.

I am absolutely certain that he has pedophilia. There’s no way that he could possibly have POCD and just gave up fighting it. Though it shows that there are some similarities between POCD and true pedophilia, and this shows how differential dx is so difficult with these cases.

I am actually sorry to hear that he has no attraction to adult females, but perhaps this is his normal orientation. I wish he had an adult attraction so he could live and love happily and legally in our society. As is, his sex life may well be barren or solitary and his love life may be thwarted.

However, many pedophiles are absolutely happy with their orientation and love being this way. He seems like he is too. I am very glad to see that he is happy with his orientation and his sexual and love desires. I love to see people who are happy. I agree that him that he should not act on this orientation as it’s illegal.

If he ever wants to have a real sex life with a female or really fall legally in love with a female, he will need to expand his love map to include adults, though most pedophiles have no interest in doing this. In fact, many to most pedophiles say that even if there was a cure for pedophilia, they would not take the cure.

I also love females of all ages. I love females period. Little girls are wonderful in a special way as a special kind of female, though I see them as seeds of women rather than fully formed entities and I see women as the fully town product rather than girls that moved on.

But there’s a girl inside every woman, and a budding woman inside every girl. If you love females, you learn to love the sprouted seed of girl in the woman and the sprouting woman in the girl. In a way, they are one and the same – females at different stages.

I actually like teenage girls a lot more than little girls. Little girls seem ridiculous to me, and there’s little sexual attraction there. I had a world full of good and great times with teenage girls, often sexual, when I was young, and I think about those wonderful days all the time. When I see teenage girls, I reminisce. About the teenage girls that I knew and loved, who will live forever in my heart.

Though when I do meet a teenage girl nowadays, they seem silly to me, and I can’t see getting involved with them. I would not do it even if it was legal. But the teenage girl is definitely a special type of female – not a girl and not a woman. Not better than a woman or a girl but only different.

I probably like adult females 18+ best of all, since they are legal. I like teenage girls who are fully developed, around age 16-17 because to me that’s just a woman. But their immaturity is a massive turnoff. Even young women of college age often turn me off now because they seem to immature and silly.

A fully formed and mature woman is not only maximally attractive to me (all females age 16+ are maximally attractive to me) but her mind is also fully matured, and that is a massive turn-on to me as I get older. Sex and love is more than just a hot body you know. And the fully formed and fully matured woman has a joyous wonder and glory about her that is equal to if not superior to that the teenage girl and the girl. All the female maturational types are wonderful in their own special ways.

7 Comments

Filed under Anxiety Disorders, Girls, Jailbait, Lolitas, Mental Illness, OCD, Pedophilia, Psychology, Psychopathology, Sex, Women

How I Came To Be an “India-Hater”

Seriously? writes:

If you’re looking for an Indian to go out of his way to proclaim love for Christians and Muslims, you’re not going to find one. My Brahmin Hindu mother has four best friends, whom she spends all hours of the day talking to: two Pakistani Muslims, a Sikh, and a white Christian. No Hindus. She has no need to go around showing this off to prove her tolerance.

What you’re asking for is unreasonable. Indians don’t run onto the streets, trumpeting their respect for other groups of people. No one does. It’s true some Indian American communities are insulated, but much less than Muslim and East Asian ones.

You guys kind of remind me of newly converted high school atheists, who, upon hearing not everything they’ve been told about Christianity has been accurate, go out of their way to make Christians (in this case Indians) much worse than than they really are. It’s all really just an angry reaction to what you perceive as a lie.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the lost tribes of Israel, the Parsis, etc. who found refuge in India. I’m sure you can also imagine few other places, much less Europe, would have absorbed these diverse groups and accepted them so fully.

There’s no denying that, while not all Indian Hindus are tolerant, India has been much more tolerant than other civilizations have been. India may very well have been the first truly multicultural society on Earth.

Think about it, India has all the major religions (along with many minor ones), perhaps a hundred different ethnic groups, all coexisting. It’s been that way for thousands of years and still is now. Now think about Pakistan which was once the same way, where all the other major religious groups have since been all but wiped out.

But I guess when you found out that India wasn’t entirely the land of peace, and there have been a few attacks against Muslims, you suddenly brandished this next to meaningless piece of information. You wanted to make Hinduism and India look as bad as Christianity and Islam do. It’s understandable, but both wrong and an exercise in futility.

Not at all. I have known about attacks on Indian Muslims for years. I was always suspicious of Hindus and Indians, but I let it pass because I am a liberal and we are supposed to love everyone.

My close friendships with a couple of Indian Hindu Brahmins were very eye opening. Very nice guys, good people, but Hindutvadis and Indian nationalists. They hate the British, Pakistan, Muslims, Christianity, the White man, Europeans, European civilization, on and on.

There was a rage there that was very hard to describe. And they believed the most profoundly anti-scientific non-theory, like rejection of IE and the Aryan Migration Theory. They tossed about all sorts of antiscientific tripe. They both supported the caste system to the hilt, while saying it didn’t exist anymore, while railing against reservations.

Before that, I knew a few others. I had a good relationship with a couple of Hindu guys from Delhi who worked for me, except the programmer grossly oversold his abilities to me in a typical Indian fashion. His brother was so profoundly classist that I had to school him on how that was not cool in the USA to act so classist like that. He arrogantly dismissed my concerns.

I knew a Hindu woman from Pune who hated the US and Pakistan. She was kind of a trip though. Always bugging me to send her dirty pics. I kept sending her dirty pics, but she said they weren’t good enough. She wanted pics of me fucking various women, but to tell the truth, I didn’t have any! She was pretty kooky and emotional.

Every Hindu I ever met was stark raving nuts on the subject of Kashmir. They all insisted that all Kashmiris loved India and that the whole problem was Pakistan stirring up shit among content and happy Kashmiri Muslims. I told them that Kashmiris themselves wanted to go free and be independent and not join either country, and they all acted like I was speaking Greek. They were brainwashed worse than a North Korean, and this was in the world’s biggest democracy.

Then I met a lot of Hindutvadis on the Net and that was a real eyeopener. Then I read a lot about US programmers losing their jobs to Indians and the hatred these Hindus had for the White West, and that was really eye-opening too.

The rage, really the impotent rage, of Indian nationalists and Hindutvadis is very frightening and reminds of other ultranationalists the world over and throughout history. Honestly, Hindutvadis remind of me Nazis in the 1930’s.

They done us wrong! We are getting back at them!

I’ve met only a few Hindus here in the US. Mostly I have met Sikhs, who I am starting to think are just Hindus are disguise! Mind you, I made some Sikh friends here of a sort (one was one of my physicians, a Sikh nationalist), and some of them were ok. The best and most progressive Sikhs are the Sikh nationalists – the rest of them are just typical backwards and reactionary Indian nationalist types, little different from Hindus.

The more I dug into the Sikhs, the more I figured out they are just as backwards and barbaric as the Hindus. Really disappointing.

The few Hindus I met here were odd. A couple were doctors. They could be very, very friendly until you asked them something about their country. Then they got very bizarre and suspicious, shut up immediately and often left the room.

One guy was a physician. Between visits, I looked up his name and it turned out he was some mid caste from Andra Pradesh. Next time I saw him towards the end of the visit, I asked him if he was from Andra Pradesh, and he flipped out, said yes and left the room. Then he turned cold and hostile when we had to have some dealings afterwards. He acted like I was an enemy spy.

The few regular Hindus I have met around town are Gujaratis (Patel) and Punjabis, and they are profoundly arrogant. I do not know why. They get incredibly weird if you ask them anything about India, and even weirder with me because it’s obvious that I understand the place more than 98% of Goris.

Not that I let Islam off the hook. I already think that Islam is backwards, barbaric and reactionary. But many Muslim societies are quite stable and even prosperous. There is little crime or social disorder. Things work, in an odd way.

It’s really up for grabs which religion is worse – Islam or Hinduism. Both are reactionary, backwards, sexist and barbaric. Hinduism tosses in feudal to make it a full monte.

Islam is expansionist and treats minorities very poorly, but Hinduism doesn’t treat minorities well either. Prejudice against Muslims in India is profound. There are routine pogroms and mass murders committed against Indian Christians. Sikhs were treated to a near genocide a couple of decades ago. Hindu tolerance leaves much to be desired. Further, as Hinduism hardly accepts converts, it doesn’t even absorb minorities via conversion, which is at least one nice thing about Islam.

Secular Muslim societies, now under attack all over the Middle East, worked very well and were very tolerant towards minorities. Much more tolerant than Hinduism.

Of all religions, Hinduism cares about human beings the very least of all. It’s quite possibly the most backwards and barbaric remaining ancient religion. We can theorize this as all ancient religions seemed to resemble Hinduism in their polytheism, nature worship and caste system.

Monotheistic Judaism was advance upon Hinduism, but as a tribal religion that hardly accepts converts and preaches hatred for those outside the tribe, it’s still an ancient tribal religion in some ways similar to Hinduism. It’s a typical tribal anti-universal religion.

Monotheistic Islam which held out the branch of conversion to all of humanity was an advance upon amoral and casteist Hinduism. There is also a socialist feature to Islam, and at its root, it is a law and order religion par excellance. No Muslim was above any other Muslim; all were part of the ummah.

Monotheistic Christianity represented a further advance upon Islam, holding out the branch of conversion to all of humanity. Heathen were to be loved and saved, not declared war on or converted by force. Modern Christianity preaches pacifism and no longer converts by force, which was never common anyway. Christian pacifism was an advance upon militaristic Islam, and Christian socialism went beyond the rudimentary socialism of the Koran.

At the end of the day, I just feel that there is something terribly wrong with Indian people in general and with their whole society. It’s fucked up something bad.

And as long as that’s going on, I am going to continue writing about it.

136 Comments

Filed under Asia, Christianity, East Indians, Hinduism, India, Islam, Judaism, Kashmir, Nationalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, South Asia, South Asians, Ultranationalism

Define Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism

William writes:

I’d like to understand these two terms a little better, gender feminism and radical feminism. Can you express and/or define what they represent to you and what you think they might mean to the woman who fit these terms?

For all intents and purposes, radical and gender feminism are the same thing. Looking at it more closely, radical feminism is part of gender feminism, but more the extreme end of it. It’s possible that there are gender feminists who think that some of the radicals just take it too far, but in general, the radicals have a firm and hard place in the world of gender feminism. Surely, in Women’s Studies programs, the radical feminists are an essential part of the canon.

The radicals are quite extreme in their man-hating, and many have abandoned men altogether for a political lesbianism. Many have hatred of men that can only be considered pathological or extreme. They often hate pornography too and want to make it illegal. They are often associated with the left and in particular the Hard Left, but socialist feminism is actually a bit different.

Gender feminists are a different breed, and many are happily heterosexual. If the straights though are extremely pro-gay, which really means pro-lesbian. Lately, transsexuals have gained a hallowed place at the table. The straight gender feminists don’t necessarily hate men, but there is definitely a lot of anti-male bias there. They are mostly at war with the Manosphere types and the Men’s Rights crowd. They have very little sympathy for the concerns of men and they don’t understand men at all.

Gender feminism is in opposition to or an expansion of equity feminism. Equity feminism simply wants equal pay. Gender feminism takes it further into more of an objective war against men in general, who are seen as the enemy. The aspect of men that is defined as the enemy is typically the sexual self – that is, they are really at war with male sexuality itself, which they regard as evil. They also lack a good understanding of male sexuality, which they caricature.

Others take it a lot further into a hatred of masculinity itself, which is defined as evil. Only the wimpiest of men are acceptable to these women, and indeed, many strong male feminists are extremely wimpy men. Quite a few are actually gay men, others cross dress, are “male subs” and engage in other sorts of male femininity. Really male feminists are often men who are strongly opposed to masculinity in general. Logically, quite a few of them are gay or may as well be.

Those who like sex and men a lot are often “ballbreakers” who put down men a lot and insult their masculinity. Hence many men are logically afraid of them.

Also gender feminists tend to think that women and the female nature are simply superior to men and the male nature. They deny any biology of gender and tend to think that all gender is constructed culturally. There is a refusal to look at the downside of women and femininity and to blame everything on some unseen patriarchy which is increasingly irrelevant in modern feminized and feministed America.

Among the more radical ones, there is a bizarre obsession with rape. Obviously rape is a serious crime, but it’s really not very common, and the vast majority of men never rape anyone.

Yet many gender feminists essentially run around yelling rape for dawn to dusk. Males who want to get on board with them are also required to run about hollering about rape all day and night and making it clear to everyone how they are not rapists and how they are fighting the War on Rape (how a man fights this war is not known).

The opposite of gender feminism is equity feminism, which simply wants a place at the economic table. Equity feminists often feel that gender feminists take it too far. They don’t hate men, and many of them love men. They are not on board with a war on men. They think men and women are different, even on a biological level, and don’t think one or the other is superior. They candidly admit to the failings and shortcomings of the female and femininity in general.

4 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Radical Feminists, Scum

The Failed State of India Grew from the Indian Mind

Seriously? writes:

This blog tries too hard, and still only manages to draw one or two angry Indians — if that.

There is no hatred of the ‘white man,’ including even of the British, because whites aren’t special enough to warrant hating. While there’s a consistent income gap between black and white Americans, there is an even larger Indian-white income gap in favor of Indians. India’s relationship with so-called white nations is similar to that of Japan. We don’t feel threatened, and are progressing quickly enough to put history behind us.

But I think you’ve missed a fundamental shared characteristic of Indians, so much so that this blog can never be reconciled with reality. In fact, of all the stereotypes of Indians, I think this is the only one with any real merit. Indians have a kind of “brotherly love” predisposition, which is hard to describe.

The second a Pakistani, for example, shows any type of support for an Indian, he or she can expect an endless stream of positive responses, and absolutely no negative ones.

Recently there was a poll done to determine India’s second (after Gandhi) “greatest” individual. India’s first Muslim president received the most votes over the likes of even Nehru, who only ranked 15th. Despite the poll’s assumption that Gandhi was bar none the greatest Indian, polls including Gandhi invariably show Ambedkar (India’s Dalit activist and philosopher) ahead, usually ranking Ambedkar first or second.

But I guess you still may be able to twist this around to still trash Indians.

I suspect the main motivation for this blog and the posters on here is that Indians you come across don’t consider you as great as you consider yourselves. This ends up coming across as arrogance to you; so you feel the need to react by trying to situate them further below you in the imaginary hierarchy you had before meeting them.

Indians don’t react as negatively as you had hoped and so the effect is repeated and overall magnified.

Combine that with confirmation bias and then you eventually reach the conclusion that Indians have no qualities whatsoever, have never accomplished anything, and are scheming to take over the world. (But you can’t afford them anything positive, so you then say they don’t have the capability to do anything special like take over the world in the first place.) It’s all pretty sad, really.

That is very interesting about that poll.

But how come every Hindu one meets has an extreme hatred of Muslims and/or Pakistan then? What’s it about? If Ambedkar is such a hero to most Indians, then why is India still mired in the most barbaric casteism known to mankind.

It doesn’t make any sense.

And I am starting to think that like most Indians, just about everything Seriously? says is a lie. There is hatred of the White man, and it’s most prominent among Hindus. Among Hindutvadis and on Hindutvadi websites, hatred for European White Christians and their civilization is quite extreme. I have even seen some of it in Indian nationalist Sikhs (most of the Sikhs in my town are actually strident Indian nationalists).

I treat Indian people the same way I treat any other human. I thought they were extremely cool for a long time until I finally started to figure out what was really going on with these people, and since then, I have been less than impressed.

The most arrogant of all Indians around here are surely the Hindus. They are much worse than the Sikhs. They have a strange attitude. They really do think they are superior and their civilization is superior, but on the other hand, they are not going to tell you two words about it, and if you ask them anything about it, they get suspicious and hostile like you are an enemy spy, and they just clam up and shut down.

What you have here are people who have extreme pride in one of the backwards, barbaric and reactionary civilizational structures known to mankind. From a Left POV, that is nothing to cheer about.

Then you look at the country they have created, or really destroyed, and you start to put it all together. This throwback socio-religious culture has created one of the most outrageous and pathetic civilizational train-wrecks and failed states on the Earth. Of course the civilizational pileup we see on the ground was created cognitively and emotionally by the barbarism inculcated in the Indian mind. The two must be connected.

As long as backwards barbarism continues to rule the Indian mind, we will continue to see the smoking ruins on the ground.

115 Comments

Filed under Asia, Christianity, Culture, East Indians, Hinduism, India, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, South Asia, South Asians