To hell with social programs

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.


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

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.

Embrace the differences

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.

The Marxist world

I noticed one curious thing in the political arena: the only politicians who consistently say things that actually make sense and have any connection to the real world and the real people who live in it are placed on the “extreme right”. You know whom I mean: Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Ron Paul, Donald Trump (and Ruža Tomašić locally in Croatia). The rest say all the politically correct, acceptable things and are mutually indistinguishable, and when you hear what they have to say you have an impression you’re listening to some computer-generated thing, because they don’t actually have opinions, they are like cult members who spew generic ideology.

I was wondering why that was, and I came up with several interesting ideas. First of all, I don’t think those politicians are actually any kind of “far right”, any more than I am. They are simply not indoctrinated by some kind of extreme-left crypto-Marxism which infiltrated itself into the universities and journalism, and therefore dictates the rules for political discourse and public debate of any kind. Essentially, it’s not so much that the rational politicians are on the far right, but that the distribution of the publicly permissible political opinions had been skewed to the left by several standard deviations, and common sense and good application of reason, which should usually be placed dead-center under the Gaussian curve, are still there, but the center of the main-stream political scene is between -1 and -2 sigma.


The real question is, what kind of virulent ultra-communism you would need to advocate today in order to be perceived as the “extreme left”, in the scene where people wear t-shirts with Che Guevara (a sadistic murderer and psychopath of the worst kind) and say that all white men and capitalists need to be killed, and it’s perceived as “cute”, “urban chic” and “main stream funny”.

The second thing I came up with is the reason why that is so, and the answer immediately suggested itself. You see, if you’re a Marxist intellectual, you can’t really be an entrepreneur or take part in some “bourgeois” activity, because Marxism doesn’t work in the real world. What you can do is either teach political philosophy at some university, be a journalist and thus preach your beliefs to the audience, or be a politician. If you don’t want to be part of the “main stream” because you’re too much of a rebel, you’ll take part in some NGO and you’ll be careful to say just the right things that will get you financed by George Soros and his soul mates.

So, we end up with a situation where Marxist ideologues teach future politicians, journalists, activists and university professors and that’s how you get a political scene where everything is skewed to the left so much it completely loses any touch with the common sense, and it’s continually pushed further to the leftist extremes by the NGO lobbyists who pose as the public opinion, while the real public opinion is continuously shamed as primitive, reactionary and leaning toward the extreme right, of course by the media, the politicians and the NGOs.

This is why it’s so difficult to elect a normal politician, and why it is so difficult if not outright impossible for a normal politician to actually implement a sensible policy, because the entire system, on the international as well as national political scene, has been taken over by the extremist communist lunatics, and they immediately react in total solidarity if someone starts to make dissonant noises, and that’s how you get the situation where someone like Nigel Farage says something that is pure common sense and logically follows from evidence, and he’s condescendingly smiled at by the pigs in the Orwellian animal farm.

To creationists and atheists

I often encounter the “creationist Christian vs. atheist” debates everywhere and I must admit that I find them quite disturbing, in a way one would find it disturbing to hear zombies and vampires arguing at night in front of his house about whether to drink his blood or eat his brains.

Essentially, what it’s all about is that the creationists use arguments like “this or that tiny little thing in science isn’t right, therefore Adam and Eve”, and the atheists use arguments like “there is no spirituality outside of matter, and we should get rid of religions and other historical relics and go forth into the bold future of science and space exploration”.

The problem is, they both argue for the approaches to civilization that have already been tried before. The creationist religion produced the darkest period of the dark ages, when scripture was given priority over any other form of evidence, and atheism already tried to get rid of the primitive past. It’s historically known as “enlightenment”, and produced the bloody reign of the guillotine during the French revolution, where all the “reactionary elements” were purged in a very literal sense. But that was only the modest beginning. When the ideas really took hold, in the age of modernism, the concept of the “new age” for mankind, whose time has come to claim its destiny from the hands of darkness and ignorance, resulted in the terrible genocides of Communism and Nazism in the 20th century. So, when the atheists say that the world would be much better if we sent all the priests to Mars, know that it’s been tried before, only Mars was out of reach so they used ordinary graveyards. So, when the creationists argue for God they in fact argue for the dark ages, and when the atheists argue for science they in fact argue for Stalin. Atheists often invoke the argument of horrible crimes committed in the name of religion, but what is actually true is that the crimes, committed in the name of “modernity” and “enlightenment” in the centuries where science showed itself on the map, were so brutal and massive, it’s almost without a historical precedent. In fact, only Islam showed to be the equal of atheism in sheer cruelty, and it’s probably because they both think that being on the “right side” justifies them in everything they do.

I think we need a different approach to those things, because we can’t leave things of such importance to those idiots.

On the religious side of things, I think we need to understand that the issue is much deeper and more intellectual than the American Christians make it sound. Their main problem is the idolatry of the Bible, and very poor understanding of what they are actually talking about. I am going to use the arguments of St. Augustine, who had a much wiser approach, and I am going to modernize his points in order to make them more comprehensible to the audience. You see, what he would say is that God didn’t create the Bible. It’s not the word of God. It’s history of the Jewish nation’s understanding of its relationship with the transcendental. Since they were inherently sinful and therefore unable to receive God’s point of view in the purity and fullness of its truth, their understandings remained flawed and limited until the appearance of Jesus, who revealed God for what he truly is, which is not God of the Jews, but God of certain principles: reality, truth, love, kindness, forgiveness. Furthermore, St. Augustine is not a deist, he is a theist. It’s an important distinction, because a deist sees God as the distant creator of the Universe who involves himself with the matters of men only to reveal the Law and to judge men at the end of their earthly lives. A theist, however, doesn’t see God as distant, but sees God as pervading the world with His being, as eternity beyond space and time that nevertheless pervades space throughout time and guides the beings from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge and from selfishness to love. A theist sees God as a presence in his life, a presence that guides him and tries to reveal itself to him, a presence that left breadcrumbs of truth and reality for him to find in the world and, if willing, to accept guidance and be lead out of the confines of this world, and into the infinity for which there are no mortal words. For St. Augustine, God’s word isn’t limited to the Bible. In fact, God never ceases to speak to us, his word is not limited to the people of the past who wrote some of that down, for other people to include into the biblical canon. It is good to know how other people perceived God, and that is what Bible is for, but for each of us individually God has guidance and a destiny and a plan, and He is the silent yet very vocal presence in each person’s mind, and in each person’s life. The crucial part is that we are free to choose what we are going to do about it. We are free to refuse or to accept. We are free to ignore and to ridicule. Each of those choices puts us in a certain relationship with the truth and the light, and each of those choices determines our fate in eternity, beyond space and time. So, instead of adopting idolatry of the Bible, you should rather adopt the attitude that Bible didn’t do mankind much good in the dark ages, and that this literal approach did not serve to reveal the depths of the reality of God to mankind. It was a failed attempt. However, you should also understand that science revealed much more about the nature and functioning of the world than religion, and it is quite likely that science is actually a better way of understanding the ways and intents of God than worshiping ancient scripture. Science has the attitude of actually listening to what the world has to say about itself, instead of trying to find some simplistic explanation that would fit the world into some nice intellectual drawer. So, how about trying that with God? How about trying to listen what God has to say about himself, instead of trying to jam him into some narrow intellectual drawer? How about listening to what the difference in the spiritual taste between gentle kindness and indifferent cruelty has to say about God? That, too, is a way of listening what the reality has to say.

As for the atheists and their faith in the way science “disproved” God, just let me remind you that science today is actually closer to disproving materialism and atheism. It suffices to invoke Occam’s razor, which the atheists routinely use to reject God as a superfluous supposition, and remember that the choice of scientific cosmology today is to either assume that the Universe was deliberately fine-tuned to an incredible degree in order to allow for our existence, or to invent the concept of Multiverse, an infinity of Universes with an endless number of variations in basic constants, for which there is no evidence whatsoever and is a mere figment of imagination.

So, basically, it’s a choice between saying that the Universe was created in a deliberate act by a conscious entity which you cannot directly prove, or that there is an endless number of Universes with endless number of variations in basic constants, which you also cannot directly prove. So essentially, since you can’t prove any of it, just shut the fuck up about science disproving God, because you simply chose to believe in one interpretation you couldn’t prove, while the others chose to believe in another, equally valid interpretation which they, too, cannot prove.

For all you know, this entire Universe could be a virtual reality that runs on some graphics card that’s only a few years ahead of our current technology*, and this interpretation could completely encompass everything science showed us so far, and could actually be proved if at least some people could temporarily wake up from the simulation and return to bear witness, and various spiritual experiences of the yogis and saints, as well as the near-death testimonies, are actually proving this hypothesis quite nicely, while the official materialistic science has no explanation for them other than pretending that they are not what they obviously are.

So, both the religious people and the atheists have quite an abundance of reasons to shut the fuck up and learn some humility for a change.

* For those who don’t believe that computers could render convincing universes, this can, as of today, be rendered on a $200 graphics card, and the real-time render is actually much better than the video: