Category Archives: society

How can I say those things?

Posted on by
4

Throughout the years, whenever I wrote a scathing criticism of some evil, I got replies with the general gist of “what kind of a spiritual person are you, writing such bad things about people, all the while taking pretty pictures of flowers?”

So, let’s get into that. I’m the kind of a “spiritual person” who explains truth to people and sets them free from ignorance and evil. I try to give them strength and confidence in the power of good.

I take pictures of beautiful things and create beautiful things. The people I criticize are doing evil things. They rape women, cut their clitorises off, dress them in potato sacs and kill everybody who isn’t a fucking lunatic like them. People I criticize create evil, ugliness and ignorance. There is no pretty way to truthfully describe their evil and ugliness; the best thing one can do is expose them and make it his goal to be different from them.

This is the kind of world my enemies create:

I take pictures of flowers.

snowdrops

Reveal evil and ugliness so that they can be destroyed. Rest of the time, create beauty and knowledge. Yeah, I’m that kind of a “spiritual person”.

About creation of wealth through invention

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a recurring theme I keep seeing everywhere, especially in the comment section of the articles, where the general population expresses its thoughts, and it’s that if someone is much better than the others, there must have been some foul play going on, because it can’t be that some people are that much wealthier, that much smarter, that much better, because “we all know” people are equal, and if they are equal, they should have an equal share of everything, and if they don’t, it’s either because of luck or because of theft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGg0tMszsXQ

The underlying assumption is that all wealth is finite, and therefore if someone was to have more, others must have less. This is the underlying mistaken assumption of Marxism and its take on economy, and it’s a relic of pre-industrial thinking. You see, in the pre-industrial era we lived in the world of finite resources, because everything that was produced, was produced off the land, which is finite. If you had more land, you could grow more crops. With standard agricultural techniques and manual labor you basically produced a constant amount of wealth off an acre of land, and this varied slightly with weather conditions, and you could occasionally have a volcanic eruption or a small ice age or a flood or a drought which disrupted things, but you basically could grow only so much on an acre of land. You could grow sheep or you could grow wheat, depending on the quality of land, but one person could not just magically make ten or hundred or thousand times more wealth. It was simply impossible. You could steal someone else’s land and thus grow more wheat or sheep, but it was a zero-sum game; for someone to win, others had to lose, and that’s the kind of world that formed the mind of Karl Marx and his minions. The thing is, this can’t be a genetic thing, because in a hunter-gatherer environment, which defined our genetics because we lived that way for almost our entire biological history, if a hunter takes down a bigger animal, he is praised by his tribe and seen as having made an excellent contribution. All women will want to have his babies and all children will want to be like him when they grow up. Nobody will say that he killed the big animal because he magically stole opportunities from other hunters. It’s obvious what happened – he had more skill and courage, he faced high risks, and had great success. You couldn’t even attribute his success to luck, but I’m certain that some did.

Throughout most history, inventions were exceedingly rare. When they happened, they changed everything, like percussion fire making, or a sewing needle, or a spear-thrower, or domesticating animals or growing crops, but they happened every ten thousand years or so, and there was no way for an individual inventor to focus benefits from them onto himself. If a woman invented a sewing needle, all women used it, and although she must have received high praise from them, other than that the benefits to the inventor were few. One could say that this was the probable reason why the inventions happened at such a slow rate.

In the industrial world, however, there is the concept of a patent, or intellectual property which is protected by law, and which allows the inventor to reap benefits from his invention. If he is wealthy, he can start a business that produces his invention, but that is usually inefficient; it’s better to find someone who already has money and manufacturing resources and put his product to the market quickly. Because his invention is protected by law, the wealthy can’t just steal it from him; they are forced to cooperate and share profits with him, and this is the reason why, in the capitalist industrial society, inventors got exceedingly wealthy, and inventions were highly sought for because they provided a huge competitive edge for large industries. For the first time in history, it was possible to concentrate and leverage the power of human invention in such a way that it became the most important industrial input, more important than labor, raw materials or even money, and it threw the economy of finite resources and commodity markets upside down, because there suddenly was a way for one farmer to grow more crops than the other, there was suddenly a way for one miner to extract more ore than the other, and no longer did you have to take someone else’s land in order to double your wealth. You could actually increase your wealth by the order of magnitude of ten billion just by inventing something useful (like electricity or radio), or finding a new use for something that was commonly available but worthless (like petroleum). This means several things – first, it means that wealth is no longer constant, but can be generated “ex nihilo”, basically with only the power of human mind, and furthermore, it means that the upper limits of wealth created in this way were removed, especially when, with the IT revolution, the concept of “manufacturing” became more abstract and started including a much greater proportion of intellectual capital and human invention vs. money and raw materials, to the point where today you can make huge amounts of money by simply buying a computer, buying a cheap online server, and building a valuable online service which only leverages information, with your innovation as a fulcrum.

So, the guy who got a billion dollars by making computer software didn’t steal ten dollars each from hundred millions of poor people. He found a way to improve their lives for the amount that exceeds the sum of money they were willing to pay, essentially he created new value in their lives with his product and got a share of that newly created value. The value was not just distributed, it was created ex nihilo, and then distributed to those who took part in its creation.

So the next time you see someone who earned billions of dollars with IT, remember that he didn’t take that money from the world, he didn’t extract the money that was already there. He actually created new wealth that is a multiple of that amount, and he got a share of that new wealth he created. He enriched the world by much more than what he ended up earning.

And when the communists and socialists and other vermin start manipulating the mob into believing that the “unfair differences in wealth need to be redressed”, and that the wealth needs to be “redistributed”, remember that you are talking about taking from those who already enriched the world by the multiple of their wealth, and giving it to those who make the world poorer by their existence. Because, we need to remember that all humans consume natural resources throughout their lives, but only some actually create more value than they consume, and they are the ones who really deserve to be alive, and they are the ones who matter and who should be supported.

Whose lives matter?

Posted on by
Reply

I keep hearing the “Black lives matter” slogan, and I think: really? They do? If so, how much?

I have a standard reality check to verify claims of this or that group’s importance or indispensability; I make a thought experiment on what would happen if they suddenly vanished. For instance, let’s take a look at this group:

If they disappeared at the point when this picture was taken, we basically wouldn’t have the 20-th century, because those people invented the 20th century physics.

On the other hand, what would happen if all Muslims suddenly died? There would basically be no wars in the world, there would be an incredibly large reduction in violence and poverty, essentially it would be a huge net improvement, with zero negative effects.

What would happen if all African blacks suddenly died? There would be a disaster for NBA basketball and athletics, but other than that, no negative effects and a big reduction in crime and violence. American black African population is probably better off than any other black African population anywhere, and their statistics are a disaster. I found this snippet online today, and although I didn’t verify every single claim it contains, the most important ones were already familiar from my previous research:

What if all blacks suddenly left America (13.3% of the total population):

  • The prison population would go down by 37%
  • There would be 53% less gang members
  • Obesity percentage would drop 11%
  • Average IQ would go up 7.4 points putting us 3rd in the world tied with Japan
  • Average Sat scores would go up almost 100 pts
  • Average ACT scores would go up 5.5 pts
  • AIDS & HIV would go down by 65%
  • Chlamydia cases would go down 54%
  • Gonorrhea would go down 69%
  • Syphilis would go down 58%
  • The average income for Americans would go up over 20,000 dollars a year
  • Amount of people in poverty would drop 34%
  • Homelessness would go down 57%
  • Welfare recipients would go down by 42%
  • Democrats would lose 76% of their voting base
  • Many criminal defense attorneys would have to find another line of work

Not to mention that thug/whore culture and pimp/drugdealer music videos would diminish dramatically, if I may add.

If all east-Asians died (Chinese, Japanese and Korean), we would lose almost all high tech and it would be a disaster of huge proportions, something that would take the mankind decades to overcome, and it’s quite possible for it to push us over the edge from which we would never recover. That is to say, they are essential to our civilization.

If all white Europeans died, all civilization would end. It’s that simple. We would lose science, technology, philosophy and art. They are the cornerstone of everything. Every other culture that contributes something useful does so only in the context created by the white Europeans.

If all Jews died, it would be an immense disaster. We would lose huge parts of science, art, culture and the entire financial system. Civilization would probably find ways to recover, but it would be severely degraded. They are essential to the well-being of our civilization as we know it.

What my thought experiment shows is that the Jews have probably the greatest concentration of essential people per population, that the white Europeans are the most important and most essential group of people in the world, that east-Asians are hugely important, but Africans? If they all died, we would lose NBA basketball, 100m sprint, marathon, jazz and rap music (or whatever they call that shit at the moment). Their net-contribution to our culture is negative, their financial contribution is negative, their net-contribution to our science and technology is zero, and basically they consume more resources than they create, which puts them in the state of enduring misery. If they all went to Mars, this world would be a better place and they would all die on Mars because they don’t matter and can’t invent shit.

If we sent all Europeans and Jews to Mars, Mars would be terraformed within 200 years and Earth would be fucked. So there you have it. White lives matter. Black lives, not really.

To hell with social programs

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a reason why we are falling behind in space technology and, essentially, in high technology, and it goes like this.

Whenever there’s some space telescope or interplanetary probe or any kind of high tech mission going on and there is news coverage, the comment section is full of “that money should have gone to the social programs (hungry people, homeless people, sick children etc.)”.

Essentially, one gets the impression that people think that social programs are the best thing that can be done with money, and any government expenditure that’s not intended for paying social justice warriors and their feminist studies, is a waste that should be abolished immediately.

However, the problem with this theory is that it has already been tested. We tried a societal model where all the money was fed into social programs.

The result was the collapsed economic model of the former socialist block, which can today be seen in Cuba as a living fossil.

It doesn’t work. It produces only widespread misery and a hugely corrupt state apparatus. Furthermore, concentrating on feeding the poor and educating the dumb while removing the financing from the high-tech state programs in fact removes the reason for being educated and, in fact, reason for eating. Why is that? Because there is a very important question that such socialist systems are constantly neglecting. “Why do we live?” “Why do we need to be educated?”

In a rational system, you eat in order to live in order to do important, great things with your life. You need education in order to be able to work on high-tech projects on the bleeding edge of mankind. If you don’t succeed at that, you settle for supporting those high goals, by making some important part of some piece of machinery that is used in a PET scanner or in James Webb telescope, or you work in a power station making electricity, or something else. In a socialist system, you eat in order to live in order to make babies who in turn need to eat in order to live in order to … Essentially, it’s a pointless life without goals and purposes. Someone doesn’t know what his life is for, but we should all make sacrifices in order to feed him, so that he could proceed to make more useless mouths to feed.

Why?

Instead, why wouldn’t we turn the table around and say that the purpose of the state budget isn’t to feed the social programs, it’s to provide worthy goals for the entire country to strive towards. The point of the state budget is to do things that normal capitalist market wouldn’t do – to explore new lands and planets and solar systems, to invest in particle accelerators that break the frontiers of knowledge, to build spaceships and terraform new worlds. Let the market build washing machines and smartphones and other low-risk, high-profit things. The state, however, should do things that need to be done but are too expensive and risky for businesses. This will employ scientists and engineers, it will motivate private businesses to compete for contracts, and this will all create high-paying, high-skill jobs, which will in turn provide good rationale for acquiring high education. The benefits will trickle down from the top, all the way to the least useful members of the community, and if someone doesn’t participate in any way in all that, and has no people who will find him useful enough to finance his work, then let him die. He’s completely and utterly useless and useless people should die, and not reproduce and make useless babies.

So what I’m saying, basically, is that we should pull all money from social programs and put it into NASA. We should pull all money from feminism studies and other useless bullshit and put it into research of new technologies on the bleeding edge of science. We tried giving money to the military and space agencies, and what did we get? The first computers were made for the military. The first microprocessor was designed for use in the US Navy F14A Tomcat fighter jet. Internet was developed by DARPA when they tried to figure out how to connect military installations by a network that would re-route itself in case its major components were destroyed by nuclear strikes. Web was developed by a scientist in CERN when he was looking for a convenient was of exposing documents to other users on the network. Positron Emission Tomography medical scanner uses short-lived radionuclides created in an accelerator. Magnetic resonance scanner was invented as a by-product of nuclear physics. It all trickled down into useful stuff from high-end science and technology, and absolutely nothing useful ever came out of the social programs. What social programs create is socialist Cuba. If you want to see what kind of world is created when social programs are the national priority, go there and see for yourself. It’s very cheap to get anything that will make you alive, and there is absolutely no reason for you to bother because there’s nothing that would make your life worth living. It’s all a circular loop of eat to live to eat, and fuck to make more babies that will eat to live to eat.

If we invested all the state money into worthwhile goals, we would have something to show for besides eating and fucking, and social networking that’s used for finding places where you go out to eat and finding people to fuck and watching videos and pictures of cats and puppies.

There are thousands of websites about new computers and smartphones and other gadgets, but what are they for? What are you for? What is the end-goal, what is the purpose of your life? What goal are you dedicated to?

Preferences and biases

Posted on by
Reply

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.