Category Archives: Culture

Alt Left: In Support of Prejudice

I just found out that prejudice means “dislike for a group of people.” This typically means a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Prejudice usually means bigotry of some sort, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and various forms of ethnic hatred.

For the life of me, I cannot see what on Earth is wrong with not liking some group of people. However, I would argue that this should be limited to dislike, it should not be obsessive and it should not be the sort of hot or cold hatred that hurts a lot of people.

This boils down to a basic limitation of freedom. Saying that prejudice is illegal or immoral or bad in some way is automatically an abrogation of human freedom. Obviously, we don’t have to like anyone. Isn’t that clear? Obviously, we can dislike anyone we want to, for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That is our right as a free citizen.

We have a right to our preferences. We have a right to have a preference for one particular group or a preference to not associate with some other particular group, although I would hope it would be phrased as,

“You know, I just don’t care to associate with [X group]. I wish them all the best and will work for equal rights for them because as humans they deserve it, but as far as I am concerned, it’s them over there and me over here. I simply prefer not to be around them too much and I do not wish to befriend them. If I have to deal with them, I will be as polite and friendly as possible, but I do not wish to take things any further than that.”

What in God’s name is wrong with such a mindset? Now obviously you cannot incorporate it into law. You cannot use your preferences to discriminate against certain groups in housing, employment, voting rights, etc. (even though such discrimination is rampant even now and is even officially sanctioned by a political party called the Republican Party). Sure, you can’t discriminate. But you don’t have to be friends with anyone. You don’t have to make the acquaintance of anyone. You don’t have to hang around with or associate with anyone.

I happen to have a certain dislike for some groups of people.

I am not wild about gay men, though I have a few online gay friends who I am very fond of. Friendships between gay and straight men are impossible in my book and fail every single time. How do I know this? Personal experience. I have also had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I just do not wish to deal with them anymore. I’ve had enough of gay men for one lifetime.

On their other hand, I support full rights for them, and I even work on their political campaigns! I support most of their political causes and in general think it should not be legal to discriminate against them.

But it’s still them over there, me over here, and never the twain shall meet. In my life, almost all straight men I have known have had little or nothing to do with gay men. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than straight men have gay friends, and the men I have known who befriended gay men almost always reported a catastrophic experience, bearing out my concerns. But then, I am Old School.

I don’t like Gypsies very much. In fact, I do not like them at all. I don’t hate them because they are not worth wasting my energy hating. I have met five Gypsies in my life. Four of them stole from me, and one just got out or jail. All were female. Based on that, I do not wish to meet anymore Gypsies in  this lifetime.

I’ve met plenty enough Gypsies for one life. As far as racism against Gypsies, it’s not something we deal with in the US, so it’s not an issue. It’s a nonexistent problem, so I have no opinion about it.

I don’t like Nigerians or Africans period very much, especially West Africans. I am done with them. Almost every African I met on the Net behaved horribly, and almost all of them tried to steal from either me or my friends.

We had a Yahoo group once and we let a lot of Africans, mostly Nigerians, into the group.

All except for one or two tried to steal from us.

A few others were trying to scam a White wife so they could get into the US. We called them wife-scammers and considered them to be about as low as the thieves.

The rest of them were always trying to chat with the women in our group. When the women would go talk to them, these men would have their cams on and would always be jerking their big Black cocks at these women, almost always White women. A number of our women got very upset by this, and some were out and out traumatized.

We threw almost all of them out of the group for stealing or trying to steal, wife scamming, and flashing and jerking off at our women without permission. We then put in a totally racist and discriminatory rule banning all Africans from joining the group.  We got accused of racism for this, and a lot of group members defected to go hang out with those wonderful Africans.

I suppose you think that because I am not fond of Africans, I dislike Black Americans. Actually, I have no particular opinion about Black Americans, and mostly I try to just not think about them, which I think is best. This is one group of Americans that I would say the less you think about them, the better.

Yes, we banned Africans from our group, but we also had a lot of Black Americans, men and women, in the group. Only one was banned, and he deserved it. The African ban did not apply to American Blacks. Why? Because they were not doing any of the things the Africans were doing! They were not stealing from us, wife scamming or jerking their dicks at our women.

In fact, the behavior of the US Blacks in our group was orders of magnitude better than the Africans! It was almost like we were dealing with two completely different races of people. This is why I think it is wrong to lump US Blacks in with Africans. Behaviorally, they are dramatically different, and US Blacks are much better behaved than Africans. I am not sure why this is, but I have some theories. As  you can see, theories of genetic race and behavior do not make much sense here, as US Black genes are not much different from African genes. What’s different? How about culture? How about 400 years of exposure to White culture here in the US?

I don’t have any particular preferences about any other groups of people, although to be completely honest, I suppose I am most comfortable with my own White people. I know that I am most comfortable with White women. I think it is just that they are most similar to me in many different ways. Also White women are far more likely to like me and want to get involved with me than are women of any other race. Why that is, I have no idea, but perhaps when it comes to dating and relationships, a lot of people simply prefer their own kind.

Which brings me to another type of preference. Why in God’s name can we not have racial or any other type of preferences when it comes to dating!? So you don’t want to date Catholics, or Arabs, or bisexuals, or transwomen, or Gypsies, or Gentiles, or atheists, or Nigerians, or, Hell, Midwesterners, or redheads, or people with blue eyes, or Republicans, or insurance salesmen, or banksters, or…anything or anyone for any reason or no reason?

I cannot think of anything more personal than dating, relationships, love, sexual behaviors, intimacy, and sex itself. The idea that we cannot have preferences or even actively discriminate in this area is absolutely insane, but we are starting to hear this now from the Cultural Left.

Apparently we men have no right to discriminate against transwomen in dating. As for me, sorry, I don’t date trannies. Real women are enough of a headache, believe me. I don’t need to deal with some chick who used to be a dude, sorry, I’m out as far as that goes.

Apparently, we White men are no longer allowed to say we prefer not to date Black women. We also cannot say that we do not find Black women attractive (a common belief among White men). I guess we have no right to have standards when it comes to attraction! The Cultural Left now says it is always racist for a White man to prefer not to date Black women, and it is always racist if a White man says he is not attracted to Black women.

I keep telling you that these Cultural Left freaks keep getting crazier every year. I think they are on some runaway Crazy Train. Apparently the nature of the Cultural Left is to get weirder and crazier every year, continually upping the ante and making more and more extreme demands. We meet a few of their nutty demands, and they don’t even bother to say thanks before they move the goalposts again and start making new even nuttier demands. It’s like a football field that stretches far off into the horizon with no end in sight.

14 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Discrimination, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nigerians, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Roma, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

The Insanity of Americans Part 36,827: America – The Curious Land Where Everyone Is Above Average

I don’t understand this fetish Americans have with superiority. It’s like Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average.

To give you an example, 90% of Americans state that they are above average drivers.  Obviously that is logically impossible.

Fully 25% of Americans think they are in the top 1% of the income bracket. I am not sure, but that may be around $300,000/yr. So full one quarter of Americans are so damn stupid that they think they make 300 grand no matter what their income is. I guess they failed elementary school math.

Fully 50% of Americans are absolutely certain that they will be millionaires one day. I believe 1% of Americans are millionaires. So 50% of Americans are absolutely certain that they will be in the top 1%. Ain’t gonna happen.

We see this in the Game Community where PUA fraudsters and con artists (and trust me, every single PUA guru is a fraudster and a scam artist) try to sell men PUA snake oil that insists that 100% of men can be in the top 15-20% of men (statistical Alphas) if only they try harder. I challenge every one of these PUA crooks to tell me how 100% of American men can end up in the top 15% of men. Is it some magic trick of math?

3 Comments

Filed under American, Culture, Gender Studies, Man World, Regional, USA

HBD: Why Do Some People with High IQ’s Have So Much Confidence in Their IQ?

Shall we reword this question?

“Why do some people have so much confidence in their intelligence?”

Well, don’t you think people of high intelligence would have a lot of confidence in their intelligence? Don’t you think someone with athletic, artistic, musical, literary, mathematical, or any other talent would have confidence in that particular talent of theirs? Isn’t it logical that they would?

I suppose I should ask you why you are even asking this question in the first place. The answer is quite obvious. People with talents and gifts for superior performance for whatever their talent or gift is for. Success breeds confidence. A high IQ person will excel in many areas that require high intelligence. Hence, he will become quite confident of his intelligence. Doesn’t that just seem logical?

If you want to argue about whether it is appropriate or not to discuss your IQ score, that is another matter altogether. American society is extremely anti-intellectual and has long hated smart people. This is why we hate it when people bring up IQ and why discussing IQ is a social error much of the time. You need to be very careful how you discuss your IQ score if it is high and you know the number. It can be done in such a way that it is socially appropriate, but that’s pretty hard to figure out, and you need excellent social skills to determine that.

2 Comments

Filed under American, Culture, Intelligence, Psychology

HBD: Do IQ Tests Have a Cultural Bias? If So, How Do They Need to Be Reformed?

Answered on Quora.

We must talk about two types of scientific thinking.

The first type are the intelligence researchers, the top names in the field, and people who actually study the issue. They write in journals like Intelligence. Charles Murray, Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, and James Flynn are some of the top names in this field. I keep up with the field, and Flynn, discoverer of the Flynn Effect, is actually an acquaintance, so I know what I am talking about.

These and a few others are actually the most respected names in the field. However, outside the field, Murray, Rushton, Lynn and even Jensen are often pilloried as racists, and the popular line is that their work is pseudoscience or scientific racism. However, in the intelligence community, they are regarded as the top names of all, their work is regarded as excellent science, and their views are regarded as valid hypotheses about race and intelligence that are worth investigating.

Although the genes versus environment matter for IQ has not been sorted out (the above names are some of those fighting it out), the argument in the journals about whether the tests are culturally biased or not was settled long ago. The leaders of the Pure Environment group such as Nesbitt ran up the white flag a while back on the cultural bias issue. Nesbitt never talks about cultural bias anymore and accepts that the tests are valid. Instead, he argues about different things. He simply argues that the scores are correct, but the differences are due to environment, not genes.

The problem here is that just about nobody is monitoring the actual debate in the intelligence community and the journals, so a huge disconnect has emerged between popular scientists and journalists who write on this subject and the experts in the field.
The former continue to insist that the tests are biased despite the fact that the matter was settled in the journals for some time now. The people writing in the popular press are either not following the debate in the journals or they are and they are lying (I cynically suspect the latter). To be honest, there are a few radicals in the community who continue to insist that the tests are biased, but they were defeated as a group a while back. There are only a few holdouts left.

Almost everyone who knows about the issue follows the debate in the press, but almost none of them bother to dig into the actual debate in the books and journals, so you get this huge disconnect between how the state of the debate is portrayed in the popular press and the actual state of the debate in the field.

Long story short, the debate has been settled for quite some time now in the field (15–20 years), and the cultural bias folks mostly admitted they were defeated, acknowledged that the tests were not biased, and moved on to other arguments. But popular opinion has not caught up with the science, so flat-out lies such as that the consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ tests are biased continue to be peddled as fact, and most readers are not educated enough to figure out that they are being lied to.

The tests are correct. There are indeed differences in average intelligence between the races. The debate’s over on that too for quite some time now. Instead the debate has shifted to whether these differences are due to genes, environment, or both.
Popular opinion is lost back 15 years ago, anyone who says there are documented intelligence differences among the races is shouted down as an evil racist, and massive attempts are made to destroy their lives and careers for stating a simple fact of science. James Watson was a recent casualty. It’s pretty depressing when people are getting fired for telling the truth, but it happens all the time in our PC Culture where the truth is often Outlawed Speech, and patent lies masquerade as fact.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, Intelligence, Journalism, Psychology, Race Realism, Science

Game/PUA: Differential Masculinity and Femininity Among Both Males and Females As a Rationale for Interracial Sexual Preferences

Let us look at the masculinity-femininity chart across races:

Masculinity In Men

Race             Masculinity Level 

Black men        Highest

Arab/Berber Men  Very High

Hispanic men     High

Polynesian men   High

White men        Medium

Amerindian men   Lower?

East Asian men   Low

Indian men       Lowest, but varies

 

Femininity In Women

Race                Femininity Level

Asian women         Highest

Arab/Berber women   Very high

Indian women        Very high

Hispanic women      Higher

Amerindian women    High

Polynesian women    High

White women         Medium

Black women         Low

Testosterone levels in both genders seem to correlate pretty well with gender and race above. The highest testosterone women are seen as the least feminine and the lowest testosterone women as the most feminine. The highest testosterone men are the most masculine, and the lowest testosterone men are the least masculine.

Masculinity/femininity, that inscrutable variable that the idiot Cultural Left wants to wipe off the face of the Earth – this is the goal behind the ludicrous “get rid of gender” and “everyone choose your own gender” campaign –  seems to be pared down to that most coarse and biological of things, the level of some certain invisible chemical coursing through our veins and brains. How boring. How prosaic.

The whole problem with these varying levels of masculinity and femininity is multiculturalism.

In India, Indian women think Indian men are just fine.

In Asia, Asian women think Asian men are just fine.

In isolation, males and females of each race seem to be perfectly happy with the opposite sex in terms of masculinity or femininity.

Now enter multiculturalism. Catastrophe.

Now men can compare the femininity of the various races of women. In general, men will choose the more feminine women over the less feminine women. Likewise, women will now be able to compare the masculinity of men cross-racially. They will tend to prefer more masculine men over less masculine ones.

This probably only goes so far.

Hence White women will pick Black men over White men because they are more masculine but will reject Asian women as less masculine. They will be comparing everything to the baseline of White men.

Asian women will choose White men over Asian men as White men are more masculine. However, Black men may be too masculine. Here you are asking to pair the most feminine women with the most masculine men. It may not work. Asian women may regard Black men as so masculine that they are uncivilized, animal-like brutes. After all, Asian societies are run on a certain level of highly civilized and controlled behavior, and Black men seem to violate that. Asian women probably want their men masculine but controlled, civilized and mannered.

Of all the races, Asians set the bar highest of all in terms of acceptable behavior. Many behaviors that are just fine in White culture are outrageously rude to Asians. Many Asian women are said to have a visceral hatred for Black men on the grounds that they are dangerously uncivilized and violent.

Asian men regard Black men as the nadir.

In Asian society, a man must support his children. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Asian men see Black men running around having eight kids by eight different women and not supporting any of them, and the Asian men are profoundly disgusted. To him, this behavior is barely even human. If asked, he will say that those Black men are acting like dogs. After all, male dogs simply run around impregnating any female dog who comes their way, and of course they don’t help raise the puppies. To be so far below human behavior that you are acting like a dog is profoundly repulsive and outrageous in Asian culture. It produces a nearly visceral response.

Black men probably like Asian women just fine, but those women are probably not available to them for the reasons above.

White men will use the baseline of White women to choose Asian women, as they are more feminine than White women, but they will reject Black women, as they are more masculine than White women.

Indian women, faced to compare White and Indian men, may well choose White men, as we are more masculine. As super-feminine women though, they may be outraged, offended and frightened by Black men, who they may well see as so masculine that they are brutal, violent, dangerous and animalistic. Indian society is highly mannered and the chaotic nature of many Black areas may be profoundly offensive to proper, dainty, fussy,  and submissive Indian women.

Indian and Asian men, faced with rejection by their women, may look elsewhere, but as the least masculine races among men, women outside those two races are going to see them as less masculine than their own kind. It’s their own women or nothing.

Black women ought to be just fine, but the problem is that many Black men are looking elsewhere, although Black men are quite happy with Black women. White women are more feminine than Black women compared to the Black baseline, so Black men’s desire for a White woman may just be a choice of a more feminized race of women.

Further, many Black women are incredibly loyal to their race and want Black men or nothing. Of course they prefer Black men, as they are the most masculine of all. Who wouldn’t? But what happens when they look elsewhere? White men seem a lot less masculine than the Black male baseline. That makes them a  lot less desirable for Black women because women’s choices tend to be towards more masculinity, not less. Further, as the least feminine of women, non-Black men are going to regard Black women as too masculine for them. Men’s choices will tend to be in favor of more feminine women and against less feminine ones.

Black women do not have a lot of choices outside their own men. For Black women, it’s Black men or nothing.

This dynamic even seems to be working with other races. There are reports that in Europe, White women are choosing Arab or Berber men over White men simply because they are more masculine. And in Argentina, Argentine White men are reporting that many Argentine women are leaving White Argentine men in favor of more masculine Hispanic mestizo men. There are reports that in Mexico, many White women are preferring macho mestizo brutes over mannered and affected White men.

As you can see,  Black women as the least feminine women and Asian and Indian men as the least masculine men get the short end of the stick. A Black woman/Asian man pairing would be bizarre. You are asking the most masculine women to pair with the least masculine men. Black women probably see Asian men as severe wimps. You are also asking the least masculine men to hook up with the most masculine women.  For an Asian man to date a Black must nearly feel gay, as if he is with a man. The people at the far ends of the spectrum are the least likely to choose each other.

10 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Argentines, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Cultural Marxists, Culture, East Indians, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Mexicans, North Africans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex, South Asians, Whites

PUA/Game: The Black Women and Asian Men Interracial Pairing Project: Doomed before It Leaves the Starting Gate

There is now a movement, with an extreme Cultural Left emphasis, to get Black women and Asian men together. Some have said that this is a pairing of the two least desirable races among the genders. Black women are supposedly the least desirable women according to surveys on dating sites, and Asian men are supposedly the least desirable men according to those same surveys.

I would add here that Black men seem to like Black women just fine.

It’s also true that Asian women seem to like Asian men just fine. I just spent several days in Mountain View, an extremely heavily Asian (mostly Chinese) city in California. Most of the Chinese women were quite willingly hooked up with ordinary Chinese men even though it is a truism in HBD circles that Asian men are the least masculine men of all.

As you can see, Black women as the least feminine women and Asian and Indian men as the least masculine men get the short end of the stick. A Black woman/Asian man pairing would be bizarre. You are asking the most masculine women to pair with the least masculine men. Black women probably see Asian men as severe wimps. You are also asking the least masculine men to hook up with the most masculine women.  For an Asian man to date a Black must nearly feel gay, as if he is with a man. The people at the far ends of the spectrum are the least likely to choose each other.

The argument though is that Black women and Asian men are both SOL in US culture, so these two most rejected groups will have to hook up with each other out of necessity more than anything else. I am just not seeing it. Black women probably prefer a vibrator over some wimpy Asian guy.

An Asian men probably prefer porn and a fleshlight over nearly animalistic, masculinized Black women. After all, Asian men are encultured to prefer the most feminine women of them all – their own. Why would such men who want the most feminine women choose the least feminine women? Those would be the last men to do so.

Black women are encultured to prefer the most masculine men of them all – Black men. As women choose upwards in masculinity, can you blame them? Black men are like the prize to a Black woman. Why would women who want the most masculine men choose the least masculine men? They wouldn’t. They would rather stay home and rub one out in privacy. It’s better than some wimpy guy.

So this project of getting Asian men to pair up with Black women, even out of desperation, seems like a folly. Charging at windmills may be good exercise, but it never accomplishes anything.

1 Comment

Filed under Asians, Blacks, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, USA, Women

Alt Left: Gay Men: A Behavioral Profile

This is a post from a comment by former commenter, now banned, Trash. However it was so well-done that I thought it was worth a post of its own. For all of his considerable faults, Trash was definitely a good writer, one of the best writers I’ve ever had among my commenters.

Although the Cultural Left flips on this type of thing and screams homophobia and stereotyping and bigotry, I know quite a bit about gay men having spent so much time in LA and Hollywood. Hollywood is gay as Hell. It’s at least as gay as Frisco and maybe even more so.

At this point, I have been around enough gay men that I could almost write an encyclopedia about them, and sadly it would not all be complimentary. There is a serious downside to gay men and especially their severely problematic culture that is never discussed anymore due to fears of being called homophobic. Nevertheless, the arguments are for the most part true, and if you back to before 1970, you can see that many clinicians who wrote about male homosexuality could well have been writing down those observations today. Although male homosexuality is not a mental illness, it almost acts like one. I think a better way to see it is to see male homosexuality as a “syndrome” since it’s not fair to call it a mental illness considering how many gay men are psychologically healthy, even robustly so.

Although the following will be condemned as homophobic, stereotypical and the work of  a bigot, bottom line is just about everything  Trash wrote below is 100% true about gay men.

Trash: Gay men also seem to adopt behaviors or mannerisms you would see in older women as a result of emulating aunts or grandmothers instead of uncles or other male family members.

They can be quite shrill.

Clothes will be important them, and even if they are not attractive they will be overly concerned about their personal appearance. They make wonderful interior decorators because this is also important. They will become hairdressers more often than straight males, or work in restaurants as they have grown up in kitchens as opposed to underneath a car or building a house.

They show little facility with tools or manual labor. They lack coordination, though of course some like Bruce Jenner defy this general rule. They do not like the outdoors, camping or home improvement because from an early age they gravitated towards the female head of the household.

Although gays work out in gyms constantly, they will generally not be employed in manual work involving physical exertion.

Generally they are more right-sided than left-sided thinkers. They can talk forever about humanities or the arts but do not excel in chemistry, physics or math (There will be 1,000 exceptions out of a billion in the world).

18 Comments

Filed under California, Culture, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Sex, USA, West

Hinduism: The Ugly Truth about a Major World Religion

Excellent post by our great commenter Judith Mirville breaking down what Hinduism is really all about. I really think that this is simply an ancient backwards religion typical of many such religions.

I was a sort of wayward Hindu myself for a decade (to be more accurate, a devotee of Kali : being one, though it makes you belong to Hindu India in some way, makes you belong to it like a New Orleans voodoo practitioner belongs to Christian America, that is say looked upon as a representative of the spiritual archenemy), I was already 100% agreeing with all what you say about India right from the start and now I agree 700%.

Hindu Brahmins are just a plainly evil bunch, what they call their religion is pure witchcraft. Actually, what you imagine about Haitian Black magicians thanks to Hollywood does apply to Hindu Brahmins : they wend their way in any organized society -through malevolent magic alone. Hinduism doesn’t exist as such – it is more a religious culture than a religion, but more than 80% of people classified as Hindus are practitioners of the Vaishnava (more vulgarly known under the name of the cult of Rama and Krishna) religion, considering all beings as mere appearances of just one supreme one, Vishnu (about 10% are of the Shivaite current, which is the more interesting part of Hindu culture most Westerners love to enthuse about but is considered malefic by other Hindus, the other 10% being the devotees of more “backward” animistic cults).

To me, Vishnu, as defined by Sanskrit scholars, is the Indian name for Lucifer. Vishnu is supposed to be the supreme maintainer of the worlds, and the way he maintains the world is through deception. Vishnu is best conceived of as the supreme banker of the Universe, the lender of karmic good points you have to earn back through hard life until you win the right to nonexistence.

Vishnu has a female consort, Lakshmi, which is nothing but money. Money is venerated indeed as the supreme female deity herself, no matter the dirty way it is earned (actually the dirtier the better), and banknotes have to be kissed before being deposited on Lakshmi’s altar by all worthy pious shopkeepers.

The Universe is ruled by three principles – deception, rage, and obscurantism in decreasing order of hierarchy, and the more exclusively you devote yourself to deception by renouncing pleasure (all pleasure leads downward into obscurity according to that view: it is the most puritanical culture in the whole world to the point where only the Protestant Englishmen could understand it somewhat and manage it among the European colonists who tried to access that subcontinent) and to revolt against the order of things, the higher you climb in the hierarchy of beings.

There is no place for divine grace within that system, only for good and bad karmic points you earn and spend. There is no divine free gift – you have to earn your way upwards by your own effort alone, and you must never help anyone suffering, as all suffering is rightly deserved. What is given to you by Vishnu is lent, not freely given, and you must pay back with interest. It hence comes to no surprise that such a country is the paradise of all Western Banksters devising the best future for humanity in the long run.

What always made me marvel right from the start is the way the hippie movement led so many romantic Westerners in quest of spirituality to such a haven of pure callousness – it one proof more it was right from the start a remotely-controlled movement to bring about the first generation of Westerners since long that renounced to bequeath a world a little better to their sons and daughters.

Caste is part and parcel of Vaishnava Hinduism, actually it is the main thing about it. Without caste there can be no Hinduism in the same way without charity there can be no Christianity worthy of that name (except in the American Republican acceptance).

The principle of caste is that you must never love your work for work to be work. If you love your work for itself or for the good it brings to the world you make the cardinal offense against Vishnu and against your own salvation, as you fail to pay back your karmic points. Those who are guilty of wanting to change the world for the better are the lowest of the low, the pariahs – they are outside the faith by definition and to be treated as foes to mistreat lest you share their guilt. The greatest sin of all is to cry out what you feel is true, as it is Vishnu’s privilege alone to tell the truth to those of are worthy of it. Being a whistleblower of any sort makes you the target of rightful assassination.

Those who are still attached to earthly pleasures but at least renounce to participate in the advent of another better world and to creativity in general form the lower class among the Hindu proper, the shudras: they are not entitled to education but to effort only for a pittance.

Those who dislike pleasure and rather like pleasure deferral as a way to gain power over those still attached to it but are still attached to their individual will are the merchant or bourgeois caste, the vaishyas.

Those who also dislike individual achievement and take more pleasure in countering others’ will though they are still attached to honor are the warriors and rulers, the Kshatriyas.

Those who are not attached to honor but rather to destroying others through moral blame are the Brahmans. It is very hard to have a real glimpse of Hinduism by fraying with Hindus because it is forbidden to them to teach you any truth, as you are outside their fold and must be pariahs for the very pleasure of being interested too much in what is not your business.

The duty of any guru is to swindle you by any means if you are not among the three upper castes, and the best you can achieve as a non-Hindu is to be a capitalist to be esteemed thanks to money alone.

5 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Culture, Hinduism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, USA

Modern American Buddhism and Evangelical Protestantism As Ancient Pagan Religions

The perverted Buddhism practiced by materialistic young Americans harkens back to the ancient feature or the old religions where one made prayers or gave offerings to get whatever one wanted, material or otherwise, whether for good or for evil.

A friend of mine went to a Buddhist meeting and was told that the essence of Buddhism was that you simply chanted and prayed to the Buddha for “whatever you want,” and examples were given of money, sex, power, a job, material objects or whatever.

It’s hard to believe that the actual Buddha himself would countenance such a coarse and vulgar attachment to the material world. The essence of Buddha’s teaching was to “get out of the wheel” – the wheel meaning the wheel of desire – and to attain a state of satori where you no longer desire, want or need much of anything beyond what is necessary for survival. Only by making such a clean break with earthly matters may one hope to attain enlightenment. As you can see, this American Buddhism is quite a perversion.

The frankly heretical modern Prosperity Gospel of Conservative Republican Evangelicals in America is obviously nothing more than a riff off the ancient “make a prayer or give an offering to your God for whatever it is that you want” – in this case, being America, of course everyone wants money and only money, as this is the only thing of matter or even value in American culture.

A quick look at the statements of Jesus, a man sworn to poverty and contemptuous of the rich, shows the perversion and outright heresy of Prosperity Doctrine.

2 Comments

Filed under American, Buddhism, Christianity, Conservatism, Culture, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Religion, Republicans, US Politics, USA

Suicide: The Ultimate Enigma

Becoming suicidal is often but not always indicative of mental illness. Philosophically, it simply means that you do not want to live anymore, and you don’t have to be nuts to feel way. Life’s hard for everyone, and at some point, a lot of people just can’t take it anymore and want to bail out or end the pain. Indeed, a person certainly feels no more pain after suicide.

People kill themselves for all sorts of reasons. Only 70% of suicides are clinically depressed. A lot of people commit suicide simply out of boredom, believe it or not. Some people seem to do it for absolutely no reason at all. It’s as if they did it for shits and giggles or as a way of trolling the human race. I suppose in a way, suicide is the ultimate troll. Suicides are trolling the whole damn world, every one of us.

Suicide is a mystery.

We have been studying it forever, and we still hardly know a thing about it. A man wrote a big book on suicide a while back, and at the end of the book he said he didn’t understand suicide any better at the end than when he had started.

Some countries have high suicide rates, and no one seems to know why. Other countries have low suicide rates, and no one knows why.

Hungary had high suicide rates under feudalism, monarchy, fascism, communism and now democracy. People killed themselves at the same rate in all systems.

The Japanese have always had a high suicide rate, and no one knows why. Impoverished North Korea has an extremely low suicide rate while next door ultra-wealthy Japan has a very high rate. There is no good explanation for the difference.

 

It may be cultural. Some societies may be more pro-suicide than others.

Anti-socialists like to say that Swedes have a high suicide rate. They claim that Swedish socialism gives people everything they need and maybe want, but it leaves them bored and unmotivated and hopeless to improve their lot, so they end it all. But all places on Earth at that latitude have a high suicide rate. It is so dark half the year that the sun only comes out for a few hours a day, and it is cold all the time. There are high suicide rates in Norway, Iceland, Finland, Estonia, Russia (especially Siberia), Alaska, Northern Canada, and Greenland. Anyway, the Swedes had a high suicide rate even before socialism. Other countries have an identical system to Swedish socialism, and they have low suicide rates.

Actually, the suicide rate was comparatively low in the USSR and Eastern Europe under communism. However, with the transition to capitalism in 1990, suicide rates skyrocketed over the next 10-15 years as did forms of slow suicide such as drinking oneself to death. So the Communism/socialism causes suicide theory seems to be washed up. If anything, suicide seems to be linked to capitalism a lot more than it is linked to socialism or Communism.

Nigeria is one of the most hellish and nightmarish places on Earth at least from my perspective, and from any point of view, it’s basically a shithole. In fact, it is probably one of the foulest shitholes on Earth. Yet Nigerians typically among the happiest people on Earth. They’re smiling amid the stinking, crime-infested, ultraviolent ruins, while the Swedes and Japs are blowing their brains out in lavish apartments drowning in luxury.

Go figure.

Bottom line is that a lot of human behavior is either not easily explained or simply doesn’t seem to make much sense at all. People feel however they do for whatever reasons they do, and it’s often hard to figure out why.

At the end of the day, human behavior is largely a mystery.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Asia, Canada, Capitalism, Culture, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Left, Marxism, NE Asia, Nigeria, North America, North Korea, Norway, Psychology, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, Sweden, USA, USSR, West Africa