Category Archives: Philosophy

Egotism Versus Narcissism

Apparently I have some narcissistic traits according to a therapist. But I have seen a lot of these guys, and he is the only one who ever brought it up, so I do wonder.

Another therapist called it egotism, implied that he was that way too, and said, “So what? So you have some egotism? What’s wrong with that?”

I would agree with this. I have big ego. So what? What of it? Look around you at important people. Quite a few of them have huge egos. It goes with the territory. Now you can also become a huge asshole if you have a big ego, but it is not necessary by any means. My egotism doesn’t seem to bother anyone very much.

In fact, I note that a lot of other men feel this way too. I am not particularly arrogant, but it is something I have to work at constantly. Because I have tendencies this way, I often have to manipulate my mind when I am around certain people. I tell myself lies like, “I am a worm. I am nothing. I am zero. This person is so superior to me. I am ashamed of myself.” I don’t really believe any of that, but I can play that role if I need to and brainwash my mind into thinking it is true for a bit. You would think that people would regard a person who thinks this way as disgusting and pitiful, but possibly because I do not really believe the lie I am telling myself, apparently it just comes across and nice and friendly and not pitiful and self-hating.

When I am not doing that, I have my normal egotism thing going, which just means that I like to have a high opinion of myself. I have no idea why this is pathological, and I believe everyone should have high self-esteem. Sure it runs into arrogance, but you can control that if you try. I figure I’m great. What’s wrong with that. Everyone should think they are great. That’s how I see it.

Of course there’s no evidence that I am great, and in fact, there is a lot of evidence that the opposite is probably true, but so what?

Playing roles in life is one thing (you can technically play all sorts of different roles in life as much as the finest character actors if you work yourself into it. Actually I advise it because by playing all sorts of different roles ion life you will realize that there is no real you, there is no true self, and there’s no need to figure out who you are because its constructed and you can deconstruct it or construct new selves any old time you want. People get way too trapped up in the somewhat nonsensical belief in “being yourself” or “finding the true you,” or “figuring out who you are.” To some degree it is as silly endeavor.

Anyway when I am doing my egotist thing, I notice a lot of men are very friendly to me, and they go into this egotist mode themselves where they seem to be communicating, “Hey, I have a high opinion of myself too! I see you’re great. So I am I! We’re both great, you and me.” If high self-esteem only provokes others into a similar high self-esteem mode, I fail to see the problem.

On the other hand, narcissism is a bit like a box of matches. Sure it can be very useful in life, but it can also cause you all sorts of problems if you get careless or carried away with it. You can even burn the whole house down.

Taoism applies here. The Middle Way is moderation in all things, and I would add narcissism to that list.


Filed under Narcissism, Personality, Philosophy, Psychology

Narcissistic Personality Disorder In Therapy: A Pointless and Unpleasant Endeavor

Like everyone on Axis 2, the person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder thinks they are fine. Obviously the problem is everybody else. They will just go through their whole life blaming other people. That’s how they ride.

They rarely if ever show up for therapy, and when they do, it is often at the behest of others who are forcing them into therapy because the narcissists is driving these people insane and ruining their lives. Once in therapy, the narcissist plays games, engages in a boatload of manipulation, does no work on themselves because after all there is nothing to be done, and often engages in a lot of ego and narcissistic games with the therapist, including insulting the therapist, thinking he is better than the therapist and telling him so, deciding that the therapist is a lousy therapist, etc.

If you tell them they are narcissists, will generally either reject the diagnosis, ignore it, blow it off with some humorous blustery remark, decide that psychiatry is a pseudoscience, or say, “So what? I like being this way.”

They might take it as an insult, but they usually will not react aggressively. Instead you will see a spark of recognition and alarm in their eyes. The narcissist is not an idiot. Many are highly intelligent and in fact, sadly it goes with the territory. At some level, most if not all narcissists now what is going on. The problems is they don’t care, or they like to be this way.

If you keep reminding the narcissist of what he is, he will stop being flippant about it and start getting aggressive. Expect dirty fighting, devious and crafty manipulation, nasty insults, or walking out of the room. Keep it up, and the narcissist will just end the relationship. The narcissist is not going to sit there and let you call him a narcissist all day. He’s too good for such degrading treatment. If he cannot do that, at some point, he will probably create a nuclear explosion of a fight and try to terrorize you into not bringing up the subject again.

Generally speaking, they are a complete waste of time in the office, therapy with them is often quite unpleasant, and nothing gets done anyway. It’s not uncommon for the therapist to simply fire the narcissist as client, informing him that nothing is getting done. This a relief to the narcissist, as now he has an excuse to quit the degrading therapy. Technically this is client abandonment and an ethics violation, but the decision is always mutual, and nothing was getting done anyway, so why prolong the pointless endeavor?

Theoretically, the narcissist can be cured. Since lions cannot change into tigers, all we can do with personality disorders is turn the bad side of a basic personality type into the good side of that type. The good side of Narcissistic Personality is Confident Personality. These people can be a bit much too, but they are healthy enough that they can function quite well especially in a hyper-competitive capitalist society like ours. The goal of therapy with an NPD is to turn them into a Confident Personality. But good luck with that.

There is so much more to talk about with narcissism and NPD, but let’s leave that for another day.


Filed under Ethics, Mental Illness, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy

“Hinduism Versus Confucianism: An Analysis and Comparison,” by Dota

Nice essay from Dota, former commenter here who now blogs at Occident Invicta with Bay Area Guy, another former commenter here.

The societies of India and China have been structured along feudal lines for much of recorded history. Despite both societies placing a premium on hierarchy and authoritarianism, their internal motivations and ethical paradigms are widely divergent. The Chinese mind has been shaped by Confucianism, whereas the Indian mind has been shaped by Hinduism.

Let’s begin by analyzing Confucianism.

Confucianism stresses social order and postulates that no society can attain political stability by precluding social stability. Confucianism views society as a massive collection of interdependent networks that are comprised of relationships on the atomic level.

The genius of the Confucian model is that it recognizes the inherently relative nature of power and how power is also a zero-sum resource. Those that possess power do so because others do not. An emperor may possess power over a subject, but that subject isn’t powerless, only merely so in relationship to his sovereign. This same subject may be a teacher and wield power over his students.

To ensure social stability, Confucius ordained that relationships be guided by the principle of ren or benevolence. This is Confucianism’s highest virtue and arguably the philosophy’s overarching universal ethic. A sovereign treats his subjects benevolently by ensuring that they are fed, protected, and generally want for nothing (materially speaking). The subjects then reciprocate with obedience and loyalty. Those in power must treat those without (in the context of their relationship) with benevolence, while the latter reciprocate with obedience and loyalty.

Benevolence is often strictly interpreted as each party honoring their respective obligations. It would be unjust for a wife to expect her husband’s kindness if she herself were disobedient. Conversely it would be unjust for a husband to demand his wife’s obedience if he himself failed in his husbandly duties. We see a glimmer of this idea even in Western tradition. Plato argued that interdependence was at the heart of justice, and that social order was maintained when members of social classes refrained form crossing lines.

Confucianism’s approach to social justice is not dissimilar to other Eastern philosophies. The primary aim here is to ensure the prevention of abuse rather than empowering the disenfranchised (a preoccupation of modern day social justice). Sumeria’s Ur-Nammu famously proclaimed that: “The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina.” Not unlike other ancient societies, the Chinese also believed that class structures were an inherent feature of any civilized society, as men of greater talent would naturally rise above their peers. The ancients thus focused their energies on ensuring that men of ability did not use their powers unjustly against those lodged beneath them in the social order.

Before we move on to discussing Hinduism, a few comments are in order pertaining to the success of feudalism in China. It is my opinion that feudalism was wildly successful in China for the same reasons that the Catholic Church was successful in Europe. The Church absorbed some of the most talented men in society by giving them an avenue to express their talents. Such men could not ascend in a strictly feudal order despite their talents and thus gravitated towards the church.

The Chinese state implemented that very approach and absorbed men of resource into its ever growing bureaucracy. This also had another unexpected benefit – it prevented the formation of a class of dissidents that could prove to be a source of agitation. I believe the Communist Party of China absorbs talent in such a manner even today. Men who wish to ascend the rungs of power often choose the political route (via the party) as opposed to the riskier route of commerce.

Hindu society, like its Chinese counterpart, was similarly structured along feudal lines. There is, however, one key difference in their underlying composition – Confucianism stresses the interdependence of relationship networks, whereas the Hindu caste system is the world’s oldest pyramid scheme.

As we are well aware, a pyramid structure is one where every level attempts to profit (by exploitation) off the labor of the level below, and so it goes all the way down until one reaches the base – the most crucial level and also the most exploited. Pyramids are inherently unstable and one way to ensure their longevity is by means of force. Individuals must be coerced to remain at their stations so that the structure may endure. This method leaves the structure vulnerable to rebellions and a constant tension between the levels. This point is obvious from British history alone where Barons often clashed with the monarchy.

In order to allay this source of instability, some pyramids permit upward mobility. But this makes the crucial base unstable by putting it in a constant state of flux as individuals at the lower stations climb up and leave their former stations vacant. This problem is alleviated by constantly recruiting newer members into the base so that there is always a base available for exploitation.

The genius of the Hindu caste system is that it combines both the aforementioned approaches. Hinduism forbids caste mobility in the current life, thereby ensuring the perpetual hegemony of the upper castes. However, in order to prevent tension, Hinduism allows caste mobility but only through rebirth/reincarnation. This system ensures that the lower castes are given some hope of improving their station in the social order so long as they serve the interests of the upper castes in the current lifetime. It is karma, the cosmic recruiter, that ensures that the base will always remain staffed with compliant serfs.

The ultimate difference between Hinduism and Confucianism is that the former is an escapist religion whereas the latter is at its core an ethical philosophy. While many a Westerner would disagree with the ethical rules of Confucianism, it is impossible to deny the ethical focus of this philosophy. Ethics reside within the horizontal space between individuals. Any ideology or mode of thought that attempts to address this space is ethical in nature, even if we may disagree with the rules that regulate this space and by extension the human relationships bound to it.

By contrast, Hinduism addresses a very different space: the gap between man and the universe (cosmic order). The goal of Hinduism is to escape the world and become liberated from karma once and for all. Karma and Dharma are cosmic forces that to the best of my knowledge have no equivalent in Chinese philosophy; the focus of the latter being on social and ethical matters as opposed to metaphysics.

To illustrate this point, consider the life of an ascetic. Hinduism places a great degree of value on the ascetic lifestyle. But the man who renounces the world resides in (to quote Arthur Danto) a space “beyond good and evil.” In such an environment, an agent’s actions have no moral content. A hermit who lives outside society will always act in a morally neutral way. The closest analogy to this in Chinese philosophy is the Taoist wanderer, who is essentially a loner. But the wanderer is not seeking escape from the world, merely freedom from discomfort and anxiety that plague those that haven’t discovered the way (Tao).

Confucianism on the other hand, by its very essence, rejects the ascetic lifestyle. Man’s place is rooted firmly in society, for as Confucius put it: “One cannot herd with the beasts or flock with the birds. If I am not to be a man among men, then what am I to be?” It is this space that Hinduism ultimately seeks release from. Consider the following illustration from India’s Bhakti tradition:

In the basic story, Tiruppan grows up as part of an ‘untouchable’ panar caste of bards and minstrels in a town near the temple of Srirangam, arguably the most revered of all Vaisnava pilgrimage sites and indisputably the single most important temple for Srivaisnava devotees. From the moment he is able to speak, Tiruppan sings beautiful songs praising the qualities of Rangi (or Ranganatha), the form of Visnu worshiped in the temple of Srirangam just across the river from his home town.

Every day he travels to the south bank of the river and sings from a distance to his beloved Rangi. Tiruppan yearns to see the image of his beloved but is unable to enter the temple due to his ‘untouchable’ status. Eventually, the beauty of his songs and the intensity of his devotion awake the compassion of Rangi, who comes in a dream to the Brahmin priest of Srirangam and tells him to bring Tiruppan into the temple on his shoulders.

The priest goes to get Tiruppan, but he refuses to come, saying, “How could you do such a thing with me, your slave, who belongs to the class of untouchables?” In another version, he states, “How can I step with my feet on to the holy temple of Ranga?” And the Brahmin replies, “Never mind! You can go [sitting] on my shoulders.” In yet another version, Tiruppan is so insistent that he cannot come to the temple because of his low birth and sinful life that the priest must physically force him onto his shoulders.

Eventually, Tiruppan enters the temple riding on the shoulders of the Brahmin priest, and gazing at Rangi in devotional ecstasy, he sings ten verses of praise describing the God from foot to head. These are the very verses that are still remembered and recited today in the Srivaisnava community. The story concludes with Tiruppan miraculously uniting with and disappearing into the image of his beloved Rangi.

This story illustrates how a man can close the gap between himself and the divine (Tiruppan and Rangi) whereas leaving the glaring gap between individuals (Tiruppan and the Brahmin priests) unaddressed.

This brings me to the final point of this essay. What is Hinduism’s overarching ethic? Western civilization’s universal ethic is moral universalism, and Confucianism’s is Ren (benevolence). It is my view that Indian civilization is unique precisely because it failed to do something which other advanced civilizations have done: produce a universal ethic. This view was shared by three individuals whom I have listed here in chronological order:

  1. St Francis Xavier
  2. Max Weber
  3. Dr Ambedkar

Francis Xavier, the Spanish missionary, made a series of observations about Indians that are quite illuminating. It is obvious that he did not think too highly of Hinduism, but it is one particular interaction that I wish to draw your attention to – a conversation between Xavier and a group of Brahmins:

When Xavier asked a group of Brahmins to summarize what Hinduism stood for, he was told that their gods “required two duties of those who desired to go to them hereafter, one of which was to abstain from killing cows because under that form the gods were adored; the other was to show kindness to the Brahmins, who were the worshipers of the gods.”

Max Weber arrived at a similar conclusion when he stated:

“There is no universal ethic but only a status and professionally differentiated dharma according to caste”

The Religion of India the Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism

Dr Ambedkar’s observations in his book The Riddles in Hinduism were identical to Weber’s. The very first chapter, The Difficulty in Knowing Who Is a Hindu, is centered around an attempt to define some common ethic or even creed that binds Hindus together. Ambedkar arrived at the conclusion that one is a Hindu precisely because one is born into the faith and not due to any universal ethic that binds individuals together under a set of agreed-upon moral rules.

Just as it is impossible to practice larceny in a culture that has no concept of private property, similarly it is impossible to practice intolerance in a culture that believes in nothing. I suspect this is the secret of Indian ‘tolerance.’ Tolerance can only be measured in opposition to what one cannot tolerate. The act of enduring what one cannot tolerate is in effect practicing tolerance. It is only in this context that tolerance acquires a moral quality. One however cannot practice tolerance when one subscribes to no real beliefs whose limits can be tested. The Indian approaches the world with extreme apathy and conflates his indifference for tolerance.

In conclusion, the difference between Confucianism and Hinduism can be observed in their differing worldviews despite some overlap in social conventions. Hinduism’s focus is on mystical objectives, as it dismisses reality as we understand it as illusionary. Confucianism’s focus is squarely on this world, and its chief emphasis is social and political harmony.


Filed under Asia, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Culture, Ethics, Guest Posts, Hinduism, India, Jurisprudence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South Asia

On Truths and Falsehoods: “True” Poison and “False” Poison are Both Still Poison


Steve: It’s sure something to think about. I don’t like either side, but I’d prefer a world ruled by political correctness than actual fascism.

It sure is a shitty choice, and the Cultural Left has stated that I am an enemy, but still I would rather be ruled by my enemies than these guys. I don’t think they will be that hard on me anyway.

Steve: I’d like if we were mature enough to accept HBD and still be ethical and kind but sometimes

That has been the position of this site for some time now, but I now think this is no longer possible. Humans just don’t work that way.

Steve: I worry that the pendulum has to swing to one extreme or the other.

Societies can and do work this way at times. It’s not a cliché!

Steve: We might miss the politically correct world one day.

No shit. They suck, but they’re worse than NAZIS? Um, NO.

Steve: Could it be….better… that people are ignorant about it, that our media tries to keep it that way, intentionally or unintentionally?

I am starting to see why people hide this stuff. That video is what happens when people start signing onto HBD. Some facts might just be so toxic and evil that we might as well shut them down. What’s going to happen if we deny HBD? The sky will fall?

Look, poison’s poison. Sure poisonous lies are ugly things, but so are poisonous truths. If you hand me something to eat and say, “Hey this stuff is all falsehood. And it’s also poison,” of course I won’t eat it and I’ll be glad I didn’t consume a falsehood because I dislike lies. But if you hand me the same stuff, I’m suddenly supposed to consume this poison just because it’s scientifically validated? “Here, eat this poison! Science just proved that this poison is a scientific truth!” So what? What do I care? Poison’s poison. I won’t eat poison because it’s bad for me. I don’t care if the journal Science just proved this particular poison is scientific fact. Great. It’s proven fact. Now I should eat it? Hell, no, it’s poison. I don’t eat poison.

Steve: On the other hand, if the mainstream doesn’t accept reality, isn’t there a danger it will empower the far right?

We are screwed either way. It pisses some off and makes them turn into the people in this video, but also if you acknowledge HBD as true, you probably create even more people in this video. We are screwed either way, but denial probably creates fewer Nazis than acknowledgement.

Steve: Doesn’t the truth have to come out in the end?

Who knows? I’m not sure it matters, since once the truth of HBD comes out, it seems like you just create a ton of Nazis, so I think we should put off this truth coming out thing.


Filed under Fascism, Nazism, Philosophy, Political Science, Race Realism, Racism

Richard Spencer Addressing the National Policy Institute

Jared Taylor’s organization sponsored their annual confab, and I must say this was one of the worst ones yet. Wait, it was the worst one yet. The NPI has now gone full Nazi. I wonder what Mr. Taylor’s wife thinks about that? Jared watered these strange little plants for years no doubt knowing full well what sort of a nasty garden he was cultivating, and now that the crop is ready to harvest, is he surprised at what bloomed? Right what it said on the seed package, right?

The white sheets are coming off these guys in a big way. I recognized a few of the people there. Harlem Venison was there. I know why he went there, but I say he made a big mistake. Sometimes you just walk in the wrong party, you know? In that case, you say, sorry, wrong address. Do you stay for a drink? Maybe you do, and maybe you don’t. But with some accidental parties, you’re glad you wrote the address down once you take a good look a the revelers. Parties are usually good fun, but some folks are so seedy you don’t even want to have a beer with them, you know? And some parties are not all good fun. Some wild parties are downright dangerous, and it’s smarter to just stay home alone. Case in point.

Harlem says he’s not a White nationalist, and I agree with that. So what’s he doing here? Bad choice. He only wants to take down antiracism as a dogma. Which sort of makes sense considering what sort of weeds have sprung up in that once well-tended community garden. But really, in life you have to choose your enemies. Either antiracist dogma is the enemy that needs to be fought, and doing so by making alliance with these jugend is the right thing to do in terms of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or it’s the other way around. And yeah, that’s a moral question all right. Not such a simple one either.

The antis hate me as much as they ever did, but that’s too bad because much as the feelings are mutual on my end, I would very much prefer to ally with the Cultural Left against this NPI malignancy than the other way around.

You pick your “enemies” in life. And so with your “friends.” Half of your enemies are really frenemies, and it’s even worse than that with your friends. First you brutally sort them into two calculatingly amoral piles. If you have any sense, you do so strategically. Sometimes allying with the bad guys against the worst guys is not only cynical realpolitik and situation ethics but also moral high reason if not moral righteousness of the highest order.

If you sit around waiting for the good guys versus bad guys war, you’ll sit out every fight because there are no good guys in war. And in so doing, you will allow your world to be potentially overrun by the worst Orcs of your nightmares all because the good guys couldn’t pass your petty purity test.

Virginity tests went out a long time ago in the West. In a world where we all sullied, they never made sense anyway. There are crystalline whores singing in the lofty crags and black-eyes virgins grunting in the boiling mud. A hymen’s a piece of flesh, not an honor badge. It’s about as meaningful as a hangnail. There’s a reason prigs are so hated. They demand purity and chastity in in a world where few humans measure up, not that anyone should anyway. Priggism is a con, a lie, a scam, a shield for projecting sinners with weighted hearts.

In real life, you get your hands dirty, you don’t always get to wash up right away, and the stains don’t always wash out. Cloisters are for nuns, and they have earned the privilege of residence. The rest of us don’t have that luxury. We have to wrestle in the mud like everyone else. A man chooses his battles wisely, and almost almost no one wears black or white in war anymore. Every army is a shade of one or the other or both or neither, and that’s when the colors are discernible at all. Roll them unfiltered,  drink it straight, and die with your boots on. Dead is dead, but at least you went down fighting.

Pick your poison and head to the front. Some wars can’t be sat out.


Filed under Anti-Racism, Conservatism, Ethics, Fascism, Nazism, Philosophy, Political Science, Racism, White Nationalism

In Praise of Hunter Wallace

Sam J: Robert quoting Hunter Wallace! I’m flabbergasted. I agree with most all of the things Hunter Wallace says except I don’t want to break up the USA; I want the whole country.

I don’t agree with him, but he is a superb writer! Does anyone else notice what a great writer he is? Sometimes I think it takes another good writer to recognize another good writer. Maybe for most people, we all seem the same.

But though it is painful for me to say this, I have always thought that Hunter Wallace is a better writer than I am. And I think I am very good. Thousands of people have been telling me this since I was seven years old, so I figure it’s probably true. I’m a failure at everything else, but I can write. No wait, I can get laid. OK, let me restate it. I’m a failure at almost everything, except I can write and I can get laid. Well, that means I am good at two things at least, and that’s probably better than most humans. Actually, I meet people who write better than I do frequently, and it is very humbling. I don’t mind at all if others can write better than me. I don’t have to be #1 or the best. All I need is good or better. You’re an idiot if you need to be the best at anything.

Anyway, Hunter Wallace is a fine, fine writer. He has an excellent turn of phrase, and I find myself repeating his gem-like perfect sentences over and over in my head because they are so right-there immaculate. For instance, that call-out quote by him above defining Liberal Race Realism is the most perfect description of it yet by anyone by far.

And I think Wallace is also an excellent thinker, which makes sense as good writers and good thinkers tend to be the same thing. Few writers write for mere prettiness. In fact, being a great thinker is probably one of the most important qualities in being a fine writer. Most people probably don’t realize that.

Now I also think he is wrong about a number of things. But what most do not realize is that great thinkers can still be wrong. In fact, they are often wrong. The fact that you are wrong does eliminate the possibility of being a great thinker.

Check out Otto Weininger. Now, I happen to think he is wrong about a number of things, but Weininger is great in part because of exactly how he is wrong in that most perfect, glorious and beautiful way of being-wrong. In fact, figuring out how he is wrong is one of the fantastic things about reading Weininger. His greatness lies in how he is wrong, exactly as Wittgenstein, who acknowledged Weininger as an influence, said, and Wittgenstein was never wrong about anything.

Now, I do not agree with Hunter at all on quite a few things, but I have some respect for him. He calls himself an agrarian socialist. Look up a seminal tract by Southern writers from 1935 called I Take My Stand – I believe Faulkner signed it. He’s about as dubious of the rich and powerful and the corporations as I am, and I’m a Leftist. What Wallace is selling is actually the real deal – true rightwing populism. Not that junk snake oil half-rightwing populism Trump is selling, but I mean the real stuff. His project is not as good as Marie Le Pen’s of course, and he’s wrong on race, but I do have to respect him.

Also his discourse is pretty clean and polite. You don’t hear him calling Black people niggers and whatnot, but Southern Whites have a long tradition of this genteel manner when at least speaking about race. And while we don’t agree about race, I think we agree racially on one thing. I love my people. I actually love White people and White culture. I love being White. I wake up every morning, look up at the ceiling and think, “Thank God for making me White!” I’m sure Hunter agrees with me racially in that sense anyway.


Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Sane Pro-White, Socialism, South, US Politics, USA, Writing

Putting Broken Friendships and Relationships Back Together Is Usually a Waste of Time

Suppose a friendship or relationship ends. You feel guilty for getting rid of this person, so you are trying to save the friendship. Don’t bother. I used to do this all the time. It is a complete waste of time, as generally when friendships or relationships fall apart there is not much sense in putting them back together. If you get back with them, they will just keep on doing the same stuff that was driving you crazy about them before.

I have had some friends, who, for some reason or another which I could never figure out, never seemed like they really liked me. I mean, yes, they could be very friendly and sometimes they seemed like my best friends. But that  wasn’t all the time.  And I always felt that deep down inside, they didn’t really like me very much. Maybe they did not respect me. I have no idea. I kept getting back with these people, and they never did come around to truly liking me or respecting me. If it seemed like they never truly liked me or respected me before, then that was the case now too also.

Patching up friendships or relationships never seems to work. Sometimes you can get back together with a girlfriend you broke up with, but this second time around, the relationship will be even shorter than the original one. And if you get back with her a third time, then this time, it will be even shorter than the time before that.

It’s like the relationship is slowly dying every time you have these huge breakups and when you get back together it is like the relationship is damaged somehow and each time you break up, the core relationship suffers some sort of core damage that lingers. So each time you break up, the relationship gets more and more damaged. So you are tying to put back together a relationship that is getting more and more damaged every time. The first time you get back together, you are already putting back together something that is inherently weaker than it was to start with.

So think of each breakup as a heart attack, and yes, the symbolism is nice, isn’t it? Broken heart, heart attack: perfect. After your first heart attack, you don’t go back to normal. Afterwards your heart has been permanently damaged by that heart attack and there is no way to fix the damage. With each subsequent heart attack, your heart gets more and more damaged. So Dick Cheney with his four or five heart attacks must have a pretty messed up heart by now.

Putting friendships back together seems even less likely because friendships are less deep and powerful structures than relationships. It’s easy to let go of something that was not that deep to start with as you did not have a whole lot there to start with. A relationship often has a deeper and more powerful structure to it, so ending it is often quite painful, more so than a friendship ending. Because is it so much more painful and because it was so much stronger in the first place, people often want to put it together to end their pain of the breakup or to try to recapture that strong, powerful feeling they lost.

If you have lost a lot of friends over time, I would not feel bad about that. It doesn’t matter why they left. In my case, I more or less fell apart emotionally over several years and during that time, just about all of my friends slowly abandoned me. The few who stuck around treated me like crap but I kept coming around anyway because muh “I need friends!” and muh “I can’t have no friends! Then I will be a loser!”

On the other hand, trust me, it’s better to be alone than to wish you were. I honestly do not mind that any of these people are gone since the last time I was dealing with them, they were treating me pretty badly. If your last interaction with someone was lousy, you often to do not want to have an interaction with that person anymore because you think the next time you see them is going to be just like the last time you saw them. And you are usually right.

One thing I would recommend if you are not resentful of a person (and it’s better to be more forgiving and less resentful and resentment seldom does anyone much good) is to do what I call “leaving the door open.” That means you are not going to make any efforts to contact this person ever again, but “the door is open” if they really wish to get back in touch with you.

In other words, to rekindle the friendship, they have to actually come to you and by doing so, sort of beg you to come back. I would not worry about this too much as 95% of your ex-friends will not make any effort to get back in touch with you. But “the door ought to be open” for some if not most of your ex-friends. Now there are some people who are just hopeless. There was one guy described above where I always got a deep feeling that he never really liked me all that much. At one point after I had gotten back being friends with him, he even laughed and admitted it to me. He said, “You know what? I never really liked you all that much. I always thought you were kind of a geek.” Which is of course what I had always respected all along.

How can you tell if your friends really like you or if they deep down inside, don’t like or respect you very much? There is no way to tell except that you need to learn to be very good at social skills, including reading people. I can read people like books, but I have been studying and practicing over for decades. The answer is that you can just tell.

If someone truly likes and respects you deep down inside, you can tell. You can read it on them. And if someone never really liked or respected you, you can pretty much tell that, though it might take some time, like month, to figure that out. Once you figure it out and if you are a good people reader, the chance that you were wrong is low. And even if you are wrong, it doesn’t matter. Even if this person really likes you but it feels like they don’t, what’s the point of someone who gives off vibes of not liking you very much, whether those vibes are true or not? There is none. It doesn’t matter why someone makes you feel lousy. If they make you feel lousy for any reason on Earth, you need to get away from them.

I would add one caveat. If you leave the door open, there should be some basic rules, which are pretty hardline. The door is open, but open if they treat you with complete respect and decency. They have to be friendly and nice and they have to like you and respect you. I am not sure how to give off those vibes, but I gave off vibes like that to an old friend, he picked up on it, and he’s been very nice ever since.


Filed under Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships

Hindu Proves That Racism Is a Core Value of India and Hinduism

KsytriaKhalsa is a rightwing Hindu Nationalist fanatic who posts in the Comments a lot. Apparently he is a Sikh, which makes even less sense. Here he is discussing racism:

Why is racism bad? You can’t come up with a coherent answer except muh equality.. A core western value. No material benefit.

Why is racism bad on a spiritual (moral) level? No answer except muh equality.. A core Christian value. No spiritual benefit.


Apparently he is saying that racism is tied in with equality which is a Christian Western concept apparently alien to not only the Hindu religion but possibly to India itself. Which of course jibes perfectly with everything we know about Hinduism, India and Indian people.

Apparently racism is a core Indian value as they reject antiracism as a Christian alien concept imported from the West.

Surely racism is a core Hindu value as this is reiterated endlessly in their scripture and the very religion itself. So Hinduism is about all sorts of different things, but one of those things is racism, which is apparently a core Hindu value.

There you go folks. Straight from the horse’s mouth. What you’ve always suspected or known about India and Hindusim – that they are both at core extremely racist entities.


Filed under Asia, Christianity, Culture, Ethics, Hinduism, India, Nationalism, Philosophy, Political Science, Racism, Regional, Religion, South Asia, Ultranationalism

From Scientific to Scientistic: Increasing Conservatism in Modern Science

The problem with modern science is that a lot of them have adopted some sort of James Randi hyperrationalism that in many ways, shuts itself off to many forms of inquiry. And in recent years, a number of “professional skeptics” seem to be whoring for corporations. They write blogs endlessly refuting just about everything we thought we had proven recently. A lot of their refutations coincidentally tend to serve the interests of big corporations and whatever their anti-scientific agenda is. This is skepticism gone berserk, and it’s  pretty much what we are dealing with nowadays. In fact, I would say that modern skepticism is almost worthless due to this ostrich attitude of theirs. It’s almost science as a religious fundamentalist belief system versus an open system of inquiry.

I would accuse these folks of scientism or being scientistic. This is where ultra-rationalist science (real science, not social science BS) has gone now. It has gone so wildly conservative that it is virtually not open to new ideas or paradigms. Anyone who wants to overthrow a paradigm or prove anything new has to jump through so many hoops that nothing ever gets proven. That and they keep moving the goalposts forever.

Further, they are almost anti-scientific in almost always opting for the null hypothesis instead of theories that, though not perfectly proven, are surely better explanations than null hypothesis fallbacks, for which the evidence is extremely poor. They keep saying, “You haven’t proven it. You haven’t proven it.” But the thing is that the null hypothesis they are pushing is often a lot crazier and less sensible for whatever new theory they hate. So they are violating Occam’s Razor right there I would think. They also hate religion and any sort of spirituality to the point of obnoxiousness. Not only is this factually wrong but it is a very depressing way to view the world.


Filed under Economics, Philosophy, Religion, Science

Conservatism Is Pessimistic, Hopeless and Ugly at Its Core

Now, progressive people like to believe in hope. Of course that is one of the reasons that conservatives hate us so much. Conservatism is very cynical about human nature. Very cynical. Downright ugly. Conservatives don’t have much hope for humans nor do they love humans very much. Most of them believe that we are born in sin, and we stay there for most of our lives because we are so depraved that we love to morally transgress on the good and decent. While there is a certain truth to this, there is also a good side to even most humans that is very, very good, and this is a counter to the lousy side which is there, yes, but not necessarily dominant.

In other words, conservatives say we suck. And because we suck, all efforts to make us better are bound to fail like trying to morally educate a bad seed from birth. Worse than that, they are pitiful, stupid, morally naive, a great big waste of time and even worse, a waste of money. The last is worst as there is nothing a conservative loves as much as his fat green wads.

Even worse, the rich and conservative excoriate those who steal simply to survive.


Filed under Conservatism, Philosophy, Political Science