Category Archives: society

About compassion

Posted on by
5

I have a long-term issue with compassion.

Every time some manipulative asshole wants to emotionally blackmail me into doing something that’s useless, harmful, evil or which I don’t care for, they appeal to my compassion.

“Don’t you have a heart? Allow the Islamic refugees in.”

“Don’t you like animals?”

“Would you rather have a doughnut or save a child?”

“You have things and I don’t. It’s not fair!”

“Rich people should pay their fair share in society.”

It’s not that I oppose helping people. In fact, I strongly support it. However, there seem to be several forms of helping people, and I have a hugely different emotional feedback to both. The first kind is when you help someone who’s having a problem. You help solve the problem, and things are better. You feel good about it. The second kind is when you’re emotionally manipulated, or, should I say heartfucked, into giving your resources to someone who is the problem, who just squanders it away, and you get to feel like you’ve been pissed on.

The problem is, the word “compassion” is used for both, indiscriminately.

I recently helped a financially not well off kid by donating my old computer; a Q8200 quad core thing with 4 GB RAM and a 15” LCD monitor, so don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a piece of junk, it’s more powerful than the one my wife uses for browsing the web. She asked me, why are you doing this, you already know how that’s going to end? I answered that I’m testing a hypothesis. So, I installed the whole system with every kind of educational thing I could think of – Ubuntu Lucid, Netbeans IDE with support for Java, C++ and PHP, Python IDLE, and all the command-line programming languages, and I made sure my son told him what he had there, and I told his father that it’s an educational system he can use to learn how to code.

The first thing the kid did was to try some Linux games, got bored with them, and then installed Windows 10 so that he can play all games. He got a graphics card from someone and now has a gaming PC. He never even touched anything educational. Yes, he has barely passing grades in school, and yes, since he’s poor the people will tend to attribute his poor results in school to his situation at home.

But no, that’s not how it works, because there’s another kid who’s friends with my son, whose parents are also financially not well off, and who also struggles with money. He’s one of the smartest kids in the whole school, has top grades in everything, and he, my son and one other kid spend their time after school arguing about politics and economy. Yes, they’re 12, and they argue about political and economic systems.

So, essentially, whom should I feel compassion for? Whom should I try to help? The kid who will convert all resources into fuel for perpetuating his situation, or the kid who apparently doesn’t need much help because he’s doing great despite his apparent circumstances?

So, how do you help people? It’s very simple. Just do your job well, do the things you feel good about, and let the free market sort things out. Don’t try to help the poor people. Buy whatever you like having and using, and someone will have to manufacture more of that. They will have to open factories and create jobs, and poor people will then have jobs, and if they are motivated enough, they will use that as a stepping-stone towards a better job, and higher qualifications. Buy the shoes that were manufactured in a sweat shop in Thailand, where the workers are supposedly “exploited”, because you see, that’s communist propaganda. They are not exploited, they are given a great opportunity to get out of abject misery they lived in before, trying to catch rats on rice fields as a source of protein, or taking part in the sex industry. Making shoes for you for 2 dollars a day is a way out for them. It’s what makes the local economy going, and then other functionality will arise from that, the same way it did in Japan, Korea and China. They all started on a similar level of poverty, and look at them now. So, help people by buying stuff from the factories that “exploit” them. That’s the best thing you could possibly do. Don’t donate to humanitarian aid; instead, buy stuff that’s produced by “exploiting” the poor in some African shithole. If people there are exploited by someone, that means they are worth more alive than dead, and they are worth more healthy than sick. This means someone will be motivated to make the area secure from violence, and to implement health care. It also means there will be need for some literate locals in administration, so schools will be opened. Basically, when you create an economic need for someone by exploiting them, you included that person into the global economy, and when someone is useful, when he creates profit for someone, someone influential will care if this profit is compromised by some machete-wielding gang. Paramilitary security contractors with guns will go there and take care of the problem.

Capitalism. That’s essentially how you solve the issue of poverty. You can’t solve it altogether, because there will always be those who are part of the problem and who can’t be part of any kind of solution, and they will have to live in abject misery and die as a warning to others, but allowing that is absolutely necessary, and if you try to prevent it out of “compassion”, you will destroy the entire social structure and produce universal misery, as was always the case when any kind of communism was attempted.

If you want to make a train move, you pull. Bill Gates did more good to the world when he created Microsoft, than with all his “humanitarian” efforts, which will all prove to be counterproductive, because trying to help the poor is essentially paying people to be poor. You need to pay them to be useful. You don’t get a good economy by improving healthcare, you get healthcare by improving the economy. You need to create an economic incentive for healthcare, and for that, people who live there must be worth more alive than dead, they must be worth more healthy than sick. And honestly, if they’re not worth more alive than dead, if they don’t contribute anything of value to the world, so that someone would be motivated to protect them, just let them die.

Another lever used by the manipulative in order to pressure the emotional is the assumption that all people are equal, and that you should identify with everybody’s situation because it could be you. Well, no, it couldn’t, you see. I just described those kids who go to the same school, have similar financial difficulties, but hugely different outcomes, because all people are not equal. Some are just just better. That’s what free market and capitalism are for, to show who’s better without being judgmental. It allows the least useful ones to die, and it directs the flow of resources to those who are the most useful. And don’t tell me that capitalism will eventually make everyone but the few on top poor. That’s bullshit. Capitalism “wants” everybody to be able to afford a car and an iPhone and a 1000 EUR gaming PC, and a house and a lawn mower and a fridge and a microwave, and a vacation in some fancy expensive place. You know why that is? Because when people can afford things, they spend money, and that makes the entire machine of capitalism going. If only the top few have money, nobody can buy the products manufactured in their factories. The factories will then go bankrupt, the stock market will collapse and you will get the great depression of the 1930s. So, it’s in the best interest of the manufacturers to pay people well, because those people will then be able to afford the products on the marketplace, and increase the consumer base. Increased consumer base means more consumption, ergo more profit for the shareholders. Everybody wins, except that kid who decided it’s not fun to learn how to code and plays games instead. He will have to lose, and guess what, fuck him and fuck everybody who’s sorry for him.

Me, I’ll rather have a doughnut than “save a child”, because by buying a doughnut I’m keeping the woman who sells them employed. She will then have money to support her children, so, basically, by being “selfish” I’m actually helping someone’s children. By buying an expensive computer I’m keeping the factory workers employed, I’m keeping the workers in retail sales employed, and all their children will have healthcare and education and food. And I will earn the money for buying those things by doing the best I can at the top of my qualification level, because then people will find me useful and give me money to keep me doing whatever I’m doing, instead of not caring whether I’m dead or alive.

So yes, be compassionate to the world by being incredibly good at your job and earning huge amounts of money, and then spend it on good stuff, stuff that will make you feel great. That’s how you make world a better place. And when someone asks you if you’d rather have another cup of coffee or help a child, go have the best cup of coffee you can get, because that’s how you really help a child. Donating to UNICEF just propagates misery in the world. It feeds the UN bureaucracy, it feeds the warlords who sell the humanitarian aid on the black market, and incentivizes poverty because that’s what attracts money into the system.

Compassion, that’s how the manipulative sucker the resources out of the gullible. Satan’s favorite emotion, because it can use good people as an instrument for increasing the amount of evil in the world. It drives the feedback loop of misery and suffering.

Why Islam is wonderful

Posted on by
Reply

In mathematics, there’s a simple way of proving a theorem. You try to prove the opposite of what it states. If an attempt to do so leads to contradiction, the impossibility of the opposite is taken as proof of the original thesis.

The implication, of course, is that something cannot be both true and false at the same time. Barring quantum superposition, let’s assume this to be universally valid, and let’s assume that if something can be proven as both true and false at the same time, it means that the thesis was incorrectly postulated.

The leftists have a fundamental problem. They state that diversity is good and that tolerance is good, and therefore different religious ideologies need to be accepted as an aspect of diversity, which is their argument for embracing Islam. On the other hand, they vehemently oppose fascism and try to outlaw it and imprison its proponents. The rationale for that is that fascism is an inherent danger to the basic tissue of a liberal, tolerant society, as it is inherently intolerant and authoritarian, and tends to erase all different opinions, ideologies and peoples.

So, let me exercise a rhetorical instrument called “sarcasm” and show the problem I see in the left’s defense of Islam:

Islam is, in fact, wonderful. As a Nazi, I love it. No wonder Hitler admired it so greatly and even considered having it as official religion. In Islam, you get to either kill or submit your enemies, they have to accept humiliation and additional taxation and you can always treat them badly with impunity. Women are treated like a support service for men, good only for sex, reproduction and making food, and they can’t interfere in men’s business. All those faggots and perverts can be expunged from society, along with other degenerates. Also, you get to have proper elections, where the candidates are inspected by a religious committee to ascertain if they have proper views, so that there can be no changes in policy and no surprises. Only the right side is allowed to compete and win. All that feminist, communist and liberal scum can finally be put to death.

Get it? There is no significant difference between Islam and National-socialism. Both are inherently anti-liberal, totalitarian political ideologies powered by the conviction of some cosmic rightness, from which they derive the right to rule mankind and kill or subjugate everybody who either opposes them or is recognized as a member of the inferior classes of men.

To tolerate Islam, or to tolerate National-socialism, disqualifies one as a tolerant, liberal person, because tolerance of the extremely intolerant is basically intolerance, since you then need to oppose those who are concerned with the intolerant systems as intolerant – Naziphobic or Islamophobic. The weirdest thing is, those who embrace tolerance are indeed intolerant towards some intolerant systems – they are intolerant towards the fascists, racists, gay-bashers and women-haters, but for some insane reason, probably attributable to infusion of money from the Islamic states to the “liberal” NGOs, Islam, which is a women-subjugating, gay-bashing, racist, fascist political ideology of the worst kind, masquerading as a religion, is not only excluded from the group of recognized intolerant and unacceptable ideologies, but somehow manages to pose on top of the oppression-olympics list of victims.

I’m a cynical and sarcastic bastard, but not even I could make up shit like that.

About calling Hitler a Nazi

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine accusing Hitler of antisemitism. Imagine accusing a Ku-Klux-Klan member of racism. Imagine accusing Stalin of communism. Imagine accusing Jack the Ripper of misogyny.

Ridiculous, eh? They would either laugh at you or stare blankly at you not understanding what the fuck are you trying to do, or confirm proudly. In any case, you wouldn’t accomplish jack shit.

And here we have the leftists who continuously go around accusing white men of racism, misogyny, bigotry and all sorts of nonsense, with the purpose of making them feel guilty enough to vote for a black poseur or a female criminal, tax them and drain them for all kinds of unfair benefits.

Is this shit for real? Let’s say the white men really are misogynes[*] and racists. Guess what’s the probability of a woman trying to do a follow-up on a black guy in a party that was founded by Dixieland in order to oppose abolition of slavery (look it up). Where the Democratic party was Sinn Fein, the Ku-Klux-Klan was IRA. So basically, if a party that used to hang blacks on trees if they looked at them the wrong way ended up electing a black candidate for president, and he ended up winning two terms, it’s proof that white racism doesn’t really exist in America as a realistic thing. Black racism, that’s a different matter entirely. The blacks are allowed to be as racist as they feel like, because whites are the only ones who can be influenced by this kind of guilt. A black person will go around all day saying how he hates white people and how they should all be killed, but if you tell that person he’s racist, he’ll just laugh at you the same way a KKK member would laugh at you if you accused him of being a racist. They would both think you’re an idiot.

If some label does in fact apply to someone, you can tell it by the fact that using it to induce guilt in that person doesn’t work. You can’t influence a true racist by telling him he’s a racist. I knew a true misogyne, a closet-homosexual who used to openly rant about how women are disgusting. If you told him he’s a misogyne, he’s just blankly stare at you, because it doesn’t work. Of course he is, he just told you he hates women and finds them to be disgusting subhuman trash that should be kept on a short leash. Of course a KKK member doesn’t have a problem being called a racist, he’d confirm and go on about how those damn niggers need to be hanged from trees and kept in fear and submission. Calling such people misogynes and racists is like trying to make me blush by calling me a yogi. I’d just look at you and try to figure out what the fuck are you about.

So basically, wherever this kind of debate tactics are used, they are self-canceling. If you use it on someone, it obviously doesn’t apply.

[*] A linguistic correction: a practitioner of misogyny is a misogyne, not a misogynist, just like a practitioner of misanthropy is a misanthrope, and not misanthropist. The French got this right, the Americans as usual fucked this up, because the fake scientists on their liberal colleges don’t really know Greek, they just want to use enough of Greek-sounding words in order to sound like scientists.

Unrests in America

Posted on by
9

I have several observations. First, the color revolutions are coming home. It’s all Soros funded, like the shit he attempted in Russia, Ukraine and other places, with varying degrees of success. Also, the method he used here in Croatia to destroy our culture, by purchasing the media in order to control the public narrative, and financing all sorts of shitty NGOs that promote anti-civilizational values (when you ignore the meaningless buzzwords such as “democratic”, “open” and “tolerant”), it’s all come back to America. There’s no longer a difference from the psyop used to subjugate other countries, control and subvert their election process and their governments, and the psyop that is used in America. America is now merely another victim of the shit it used to export to us. The only countries that are completely resistant to this are the Islamic countries, which export their own variety of bullshit, and Russia, which figured it all out and outright banned Soros and his propagandist servants.

Second, although they usually use the buzzword “democratic”, those people are everything but. Whenever they don’t like the result produced by the actual democracy, they bring thousands of people on the streets to paralyze the society and cause chaos. The thing is, the amount of votes those protesters could cast in the elections is negligible. They already voted, and turned out to be a minority. The interesting thing is, Americans themselves defined terrorism as an attempt by a political minority to influence the society by non-democratic means. That is exactly what this is: a minority that lost the elections wants to overturn the result of the election using non-democratic means. They are terrorists.

Third, a country with so many stupid, irresponsible crybabies might be completely incapable of actual recovery. It might even turn out to be so dysfunctional as to simply descend into chaos and violence.

Essentially, that’s what you get when you indoctrinate young people with completely unrealistic ideas, such as group identity politics, human rights, sensitivity-based speech and actions, and basically the concept of big, over-reaching governments that is supposed to “right all wrongs”. Essentially, the Americans first invented that bullshit as a method of pressuring other countries, but they also kept teaching that in their schools, and when the children indoctrinated on those lies and illusions grew up, they turned out to be entitled, irresponsible, crybaby idiots with demands.

If you want to see why the extremely conservative, Christian positions on society are correct, just take a look at what happens to society when you try to remove them and base the society on atheism, entitlement, sensitivity, group identity, and the concept of rights instead of duties. You get a dysfunctional society full of people of low intelligence and high indoctrination.

About cults, and what makes them bad

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been thinking about what differentiates cults from religions. So, let me get the obvious concepts out of the way.

It’s not size. Every religion starts small. Buddhism started with Buddha giving a sermon in Sarnath, near Varanasi. Christianity started with Jesus and his dozen disciples. Islam started with Mohammad seeing a demon in a cave, who scared him to the point of wanting to kill himself, and his wife telling him he’s not crazy, he’s a prophet (true story).

So, the fact that something at one point has billions of followers doesn’t mean it didn’t start with a lunatic having a psychotic episode in a cave.

The other thing to get out of the way is the etymology. In some languages, “cult” is negatively charged while “sect” is neutrally charged, in others it’s the other way around. For instance, the Croatian translation for “cult” is “sekta”. So, when the Croats try to make some big thing about false etymology, trying to prove that “sect” derives from “secare, sectum”, “to cut”, not only they are wrong (it derives from sequi, sectum, “to follow”), but their etymology would be meaningless to the English audience to which “sect” is a neutral word. So, the word itself has no sinister connotations.

If I had to make a very simple definition, sticking to English language, I would say that “cult” is a “sect” you happen not to like. It’s like the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are the terrorists you happen to like, or they work for you.

There’s no significant formal difference in appearance or organization between the craziest and most vicious cults and the best, noblest spiritual movements mankind has ever produced. They all start with some guy with an idea, he attracts followers, and it either grows from there or dies out. So, the cult-like form doesn’t really tell you anything valuable or informative. So, saying that something is a “cult” because it consists of a spiritual teacher and his followers is a completely non-sequitur argument. It doesn’t tell us anything important about spiritual, ethical or intellectual merits of the entire thing. It’s like saying a car is red. OK, it’s red, but what brand is it, what engine does it have, how fast does it go? To say that something is a “cult” is essentially saying it’s a following of some kind. But whom are they following, why, how, and to what end?

The interesting thing is, there are other very similar social structures, but they are not called cults. A gang, for instance, is a cult in all ways but one: it has no spiritual pretensions. But to turn it around, how many cults are so bad that you can say they are gangs with spiritual pretensions? I can make a good case that Islam was exactly that. It was a gang that robbed caravans around Medina, and later spread throughout the world using primarily violence and deception. If anything, it is more a gang than a spiritual teaching in its social structure, even now. But in case of Buddhism or Christianity, that doesn’t hold. There some Buddhist sects that behave like gangs – Aum Shinrikyo, for instance, and I could make a case for Nichiren. In Christianity, I don’t think I can remember of any notable sects that acted like gangs. In Hinduism, there are unfortunately several examples, for instance the Thugee, a sect of Kali worshipers who made a ritual out of strangling and robbing passengers on roads. So, what does that mean, that within religions you can have sects that are cults? Yes, but what does that tell us about cults? First of all, if you describe such a religious gang as a cult, any sane person will agree on the definition. The problem is when detractors use the term to denote any religious group that they wish to slander, pointing out superficial similarities with known evil cults, in hope that they will avoid having to point out what exactly is wrong with the group they wish to malign.

So, let me give my definition of a cult. A cult is something that has the formal qualities of a religious group, behaves like a gang, and has no deep and authentic spiritual guidance.

What does that mean? It means that the only difference between early Christians and early Muslims is that Jesus didn’t instruct his disciples to go out and rob the caravans of “infidels”, and that unlike Mohammad he actually had an authentic spiritual connection with God. You can’t judge them on superficial similarities, because the crux of the matter is whether they are good or evil and whether they are from God or not. People today try to present it as if the bad thing about a cult is that it follows a spiritual leader. It’s not. If you followed Jesus or Buddha, how is that a bad thing? It is only a bad thing when the spiritual leader of the group is false. But that’s the difficult part – how will you know whether the leader is authentic? It’s easier to just claim they are all false and then what remains for you is to see whether a group matches a simplified description. That’s what atheists do. I advise against it.

There’s another interesting phenomenon – heretical sects within an evil religion, that are authentic spiritual followings; an example of this are the Sufis in Islam. They had an interpretation of Islam that was more Vedanta than Islam, they were thought of as heretics by the Muslim main stream, but if anything, they were on the path of sainthood. So, the fact that something is a heretical off-shoot of some religion doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad. Being main-stream isn’t necessarily a good thing.

There’s another thing – trying to define moderation as good, and radicalism as bad. If you want to say someone is good, call him a moderate, and if you want to say someone is bad, call him a radical. That actually works only if you’re talking about a philosophy that is inherently evil, and so if someone follows it consistently he becomes an evil person, and if someone doesn’t really take it seriously, he can be a good person. This is the case with Islam. The more consistently you follow it, the more evil you get to be. That’s why you can equate “Islamic radicals” with “evil Muslims”. However, it doesn’t work with other religions. For instance, what’s a radical Jain or Buddhist or Christian? What’s a radical Yogi? Does someone become more evil if he practices pranayama with kumbhaka of over a minute? Does he become evil if he walks around in soft slippers and a mask so that he doesn’t kill bugs and microbes because violence is the ultimate evil? Does he become evil if he does japa of 32 rounds a day? Does a Christian become super-evil because he’s so radical he enters a convent where he does nothing but pray, fast and commune with others like him? Such people are not the summit of social productivity, and they frequently exclude themselves from society at large, but even the most anti-religious advocates couldn’t describe them as “evil”. Weirdos, maybe. But not evil.

Evil, that’s what you become if you have your daughter’s clitoris cut off because of your religion, or if you kill other people while shouting how great your God is. Yes, you can become evil by taking religion seriously, but it does matter which religion you take seriously. They are not all the same. If you take some of them seriously you are more likely to become a saint than a thug. However, if you take a thug religion seriously, you become a thug. So, there’s another definition of a cult: it’s a gang of thugs who take an evil religion seriously.

So, basically, if you don’t like some religiously-flavored group that takes its teaching seriously, it’s a cult and the members are referred to as brainwashed zombies or Borg drones. If you like it, it’s referred to as a convent of monks. If you like a rebel group, they are partisans or guerrilla fighters. If you don’t like them, they are bandits or terrorists.