I was thinking about all the whining about discrimination by all sorts of groups, and I thought, how do you tell if a group is being discriminated against unfairly, or is it just inferior and can’t succeed on merit, and then resorts to whining in order to guilt people into giving them resources?

Then I remembered a thing I personally used to do in similar circumstances, when I wanted to find out whether something is good or bad – I would see if I had any objections to being a member of some group. I think it’s the most honest possible method; if there’s something wrong about some group of people, for instance if they are inferior or discriminated against, if you perceived the problem on some level you wouldn’t want to be in a disadvantaged position. So, women claim to be in a disadvantaged position. Would I have a problem with being born a woman?

First of all, I wouldn’t want to be born at all, and definitely not in this shithole of a world, that’s for sure. But that aside, sex is the least of my concerns. There are parts of the world, in the cultural and civilizational sense, where I certainly wouldn’t want to be born, for instance I wouldn’t want to be born in some idiotic tribe which performs genital mutilation, or where women are treated like shit. But if I limit my choice to the Western civilization, it’s not an issue. I wouldn’t have the slightest objection to being female, it’s perfectly fine. My first question would be “whose wife would I be”, because that would determine much of the quality of my life, as I see it. I also wouldn’t want to have shitty parents. I have too much experience with that in this life and no thank you, I wouldn’t want an encore. However, as important as that is, it pales in comparison with the question of “whom do you live your life with”, and for me, the main part of being a woman is being with someone you admire. So as you can see, I’m considering practicalities, like wanting to be beautiful and having a great husband, and at no point does it cross my mind that there’s some inherent disadvantage of being female and that I’d want to avoid it at all cost. I think there’s an inherent disadvantage in being born on the physical plane, and that it’s an inherent disadvantage to be born poor, powerless and surrounded by stupid and crazy people, that’s true. But I think that being female is so completely non-problematic I’d swap positions with my girls in a heartbeat. The sexes are different, though, and there are things I like about being male, and there are things I’d like about being female. It’s not the same thing, but it’s as good. You do some things in a different way to get the results of the same essential quality, but there is no inherent disadvantage in either. As far as I see it, the greatest inherent advantage of being male is the ability to piss while standing up, and, possibly, to be able to run fast without first bothering to bind your breasts firmly so that they don’t bounce painfully. Everything else levels out. I never, ever had a situation where I had it easy because I’m a man, or where I would not be able to do things if I were female. Almost everything I do is about mind and yogi energetics, and I saw more women than men who are inherently as capable as I am; I never saw a man who had the system capable of bearing even the fraction of my energy and I saw several women who could do it easily; I could actually find myself in their bodies and expand to full power with ease and no special adjustment. So, essentially, if I wanted to retain my spiritual power while incarnate, I’d have more reason to worry about being male, because I know more women than men of my kind.

I actually have greatest issues with civilization – there are some civilizations that are so bad and spiritually corruptive, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near. Race is also an issue for me; I have strong preferences. For instance, I’d have no problem with brahmana and ksatriya castes of India, with caucasian white, Jewish or Chinese, but I would strongly dislike African, native Australian or something similar. I see it not as “black or white” but more like this: in India, you have people who are black but they can either practice sophisticated forms of yoga or be astrophysicists or engineers, and in Africa you have people who are also black but they cut girls’ clitorises off and are fucking idiots; none of them are either yogis or scientists. So therein lies the cause for my concern: if you have a culture or a civilization which promotes being a fucking idiot and discourages being a smart sophisticated person, I don’t want to go anywhere near it. So yeah, I have rather well defined cultural and racial preferences, and they will stay there because I really believe that some cultures are far superior to others, and until race can be conclusively excluded from the mixture, I will continue having preferences there, too.

I also have other preferences – being wealthy is much better than being poor, and being in a position of power is much better than being powerless. If you’re wealthy and powerful you have choices and options. You can choose to do wrong things, but if you’re poor and powerless, you have almost no choice in anything and things are mostly done to you, not by you, and that’s hardly a life. Also, being smart is great. It’s such a great power to wield, and you can do so many good things with it and avoid so many evils if you’re mentally brilliant. Having good sources for acquiring knowledge, too, is wonderful. Having access to Internet, to books, to smart people; it’s a great thing.

The thing with my preferences is that I will justify them to the point of death. I will never apologize for them or think I’d be better off without them, thinking it’s the same to be smart or stupid, to have access to knowledge or to be without it, to be in a civilization that promotes sophisticated philosophy and thought, or in some savage shithole that circumcises children, practices Islam and believes that all God wants from us is submission. I’m a racist and a cultural supremacist, and if you don’t like it, tough shit. Surprisingly, however, I don’t have any gender bias. One would not think so considering how harshly I am known to criticize women, but I do so exactly because I have no gender bias that would color my perception of either male or female bullshit. If I were a woman, I wouldn’t expect smart people to put up with my shit, either, and it’s not a sexist thing, it’s a respectful thing. I would, however, prefer to be confronted with my shit in a respectful, kind manner and with a healthy dose of humor, and I like to think it’s what I’m doing. I’m treating women exactly the way I’d want to be treated if I were a woman: I’d want others to sharply rebuke me if I started doing some weirdly wrong shit, and to tell me how much better I can do. To tolerate someone’s crap isn’t really doing that person a service; it’s condescending and harmful, and I hate it. I have no problem being kind with people, but it’s a matter of respect to hold one to high standards.

I was thinking about something just now – how do you know how good something is, and how to compare two different things, be it computers, cameras or political systems. You can’t really take someone’s word for it, because computer manufacturers will say that their computer is the greatest thing ever, and adherents of a political system will say theirs is the best ever. So how do you cut through the bullshit?

Well, I ask “what does it do?” If Intel CPU has the nominal clock of 4 GHz and 4 physical cores with 8 threads, and AMD CPU has the nominal clock of 4 GHz and 8 physical cores, do you say that 8 is more than 4 and AMD is better? You’d be wrong because if you benchmark the two, testing “what they do”, it turns out that Intel is significantly faster. Obviously, you can’t judge on nominal performance and you can’t use mere logic and common sense, because your common sense will make assumptions, like the one that 4GHz is 4GHz, and that’s not really so, because different CPU architectures can differ in how many instructions per clock they can execute, and AMD actually shares a FPU unit between two nominal cores, so those cores are not really the same as the Intel ones. Essentially, there are too many differences for you to be able to compare them on mere numbers, without actually testing them. What’s the lesson in this? Don’t trust the narrative. A political system can sound great on paper, but how many implicit unwarranted assumptions did you make? What did you miss, what was unknown, unsaid, and can influence the end result? You need to see the results. For instance, Marxism always sounds good on paper. People are equal, they have the same rights, and if some have more than others it’s injustice which needs to be remedied. Since the thieves will not willingly give up their privileges, the state must do something to redress injustices. If you fix injustices, you are a noble person. You are on moral high ground.

But what about those assumptions? You made the assumption that wealth is pre-existent and if someone has more than his fair share, which is the total amount of wealth divided by the number of people, it’s not right. However, what if all that is wrong? What if people aren’t equal? What if they have different abilities, and make different choices? What if those choices have different outcomes? You have a class of pupils in school, and some choose to play football while others learn. Those who learn get better grades. Is it social justice to give everyone the same grades just because you assume that all pupils are equal and therefore deserve getting equal grades? Oops.

So suddenly “fair” isn’t “everybody getting the equal share of everything”, but “everybody getting what they deserve according to the choices they made on an equal playing field”. Suddenly, Marxism lost its claimed moral high ground. If you’re not convinced, just substitute something else instead of money or resources, for instance beauty and sex. Marxism would claim that beautiful people grabbed more than their rightful share of sexual attractiveness, and that isn’t fair. They should be surgically altered to be made uglier, so that all would be equally unattractive, and women should be forced by the state to have sex with men who are so unattractive that nobody wants to fuck them.

So, how about that? Do you now understand why I think social justice is when there’s a reasonably equal playing field, on which all compete, they try different things and they have different outcomes, and it’s perfectly just for some to get better outcomes than the others? Of course, you might argue that some things, such as philosophy and art, need to have preferential treatment, because they serve the common good, and without some form of intervention they would not fare sufficiently well in the open market. “Bullshit”, I say. If a philosopher isn’t interesting enough to his followers that they would wish to give him financial contributions, why would anyone else finance him? If an artist isn’t interesting enough for people to buy his art, why would the state support him with tax money? It’s easy enough to find things that “should” be financed with public funding and places to intervene because the free market isn’t “just”, but just think about it: should we support Blackberry with tax money just because they “provide an interesting and valuable product”? If they were really that good and interesting, would their own customers really abandon them for Apple and Android? Things die off because they are deemed useless. Of course, sometimes good and useful things are allowed to die off because people were short-sighted enough to allow this, but this is why people should make more effort to support and protect things they personally deem valuable, and see that as their own personal responsibility. Imagine if there were no state, and you understood that it’s your personal responsibility to make sure that the things you see as good prosper, and that the things you see as bad are destroyed. Let’s say someone is poor and sick. Should “we” just let him die? My question is, who are “we”? Does that person have family, friends, neighbors, someone who cares about him and loves him? If so, then it’s their duty to take care of him. It’s their job to make sure that people they care about are taken care of. However, if someone has no friends, if he treated his family so poorly they don’t care whether he lives or dies, why would the state or society have to save that person, which obviously doesn’t deserve to be saved? Some things need to die. Some things need to be a warning to others, an example why it’s not a good thing to abuse your children and your spouse and to be a worthless person. And before you say it, that isn’t cruelty. That’s justice. A parent abusing his or her children throughout their childhood is cruelty. When those children leave never to turn back, and that parent finds himself/herself in shit creek without paddles, that’s justice. But should we not have mercy? Of course we should. We should have mercy for that person’s victims. We should feel sympathy for them and support them.

So, basically, while the concept of a social state sounds just and compassionate on paper, it is in fact the worst thing you could do, because it punishes those who did the right things by taking from them to give to those who did the wrong things. It discourages personal responsibility for things that happen around us. It saps motivation and creates apathy. It feeds the things that are supposed to die and kills things that would otherwise live, and it does all that by introducing guilt for being good and successful, and tries to make you believe that you are as good as that other person, who did nothing but read magazines in bed, beat up her children and shower her husband and kids with insults, because somehow it doesn’t matter that you made all the right choices and she made all the bad ones – somehow, all that matters is that she’s human. But is she, really? Is “human” what you are, or what you do? As someone who had such nominally human parents who drove me and my brother to the point of attempting suicide, I actually know what I’m talking about. People should be rewarded for being good, loving, caring individuals who acquire knowledge and skills that make world a better place. People should not be rewarded for being nominally human, and in some cases, compassion needs to be reined in. I’ve heard many “spiritual” theories according to which any compassion that doesn’t encompass everyone, including Satan, is somehow not the real thing, but let me tell you, those concepts are invalid. They were invented by people who never had the misfortune of meeting Satan. They never had to know true evil and see it for what it is. They think it’s like the movies with good guys wearing white hats and bad guys wearing black hats. It’s not. There are persons who find pleasure only in owning you and controlling you and destroying you and if you feel compassion for them, they will just use it to control you and destroy you more efficiently. So no, true spirituality isn’t about having compassion for Satan. It’s about having compassion for God, who had to watch those he loved betray him and embrace evil, and then proceed to blame Him for their suffering.

With computers, the true test is what they do in real applications. With political and economic concepts, the true test is what they do when they are applied to an actual society. With humans, the true test is what they do with their lives. There are always consequences.