The Elite Fit to Rule


The only elite fit to rule over humanity are those who understand the value of direct democracy, in my opinion.  They are the truly sane human beings who must push back any force that tries to enforce a minority will on the majority.

This “elite” supporting TRUE democracy can (and hopefully does) include the majority of people.

People’s emotions are more accurate than what elitists define as “logic/reason.”  Every person who pretends to be pure logic/intellect supports imperialism, military power, oppressing other groups, and—in many historical cases—slavery, racism, sexism, rape, torture, etc.  People who say they are pure logic/reason also despise direct democracy despite supporting invading other countries using the phoney excuse of spreading democracy.

People who pretend they are of advanced intellect always need to be extreme elitists who justify the worst abuses of power because in reality they aren’t reasonable or logical in the slightest.  However, if they talk in a condescending manner, create the illusion of intellectual sophistication, and support the oppressor, it makes no difference how stupid or nonsensical they are.

People’s emotions are LOGICAL and accurate the majority of the time.  For those times intuitive instinct is not accurate, logical extrapolation of commonly held truths to broader situations, allowing the maintenance of logical consistency, is helpful.

People who think pure logic can guide all actions are not logical at all in most cases.  They just don’t want humans to trust their gut instincts and want to enforce elitism using excuses designed to sound logical.

People should trust their instincts and temper it with a little bit of logic here and there for greater accuracy.  People who want humans to be PURE logic are typically asking for humanity to be wrong/inaccurate the large majority of the time under the illusion that such actions make sense from some special realm of advanced intellect (which in reality does not exist.)

We Can’t Unsee What We’ve Already Seen


The underlying personality types of all humans are fundamentally the same across our species.  The same problems, desires, fears, etc. are largely the same regardless of “race” or location.  People with the narcissistic personality type display the exact same behaviours whether they are Black, White (which includes most Middle Easterners,) East Eurasian, etc.

Up until now, we have been trying to deal with issues of racial intolerance by pretending that all people are exactly the same.  This is only a band-aid cure because differences obviously exist.  The cure is not to pretend there are no differences but to take a mature enough perspective to realize that these differences are not actually that important.

The problem is that any study of racial differences or characterization of such often gives rise to extreme prejudice, often from those within the scientific community and those conducting such studies themselves.  James Watson is not somebody who, from my perspective, takes a very mature approach to the issue of racial differences.  People like Watson, Dawkins, and many in the scientific/academic field are always assessing for the elite group they want to be a part of so any indication that a group will not be a current convenience immediately results in discrimination/prejudice.


For many people, the cure to racism is to just get over it.  When you watch many reality shows, houses usually become divided based on people’s personality-types and taking race into account just becomes too confusing.  Also, I’m sure there have been time periods where people living in very ethnically diverse locations such as the Middle East did not actually view “race” as being that big of a deal (though there have obviously also been times when it’s been used to condone things like slavery etc.)


However, there also needs to be a level where people involved in classifying/characterizing natural phenomena can discuss or do scientific studies about differences in race without it giving rise to discrimination.  This can only result from people accepting differences rather than pretending those differences do not exist and taking a mature/tolerant rather than an immature/elitist outlook.

Filipinos are known for having many gifted singers/orators.  This is likely more than a completely unfounded stereotype.  The producers of Miss Saigon scoured the earth looking for talent from the Asian community and often could not find strong enough vocals.  Filipinos ended up comprising a large bulk of the cast and were given lead roles based on the fact there were so many good singers within their population.

Does that mean all Filipinos can sing? Obviously not.  And using this to pretend Filipinos are more human than others is as foolish as arguing people on Broadway are somehow a superior breed of human compared to the rest of us.


Focus on superficial traits/differences is often used by sinister personality-types (of all races) to distract from the real issues at hand.  For example, there have been aggressive right-wing pushes all across the Westernized world.  In Japan, neo-Nazis are using the ideologies of people like Hitler to discriminate against ethnic Koreans living in the country.  One quick and convenient way to maintain elite standing is to subjugate a more innocent group of people.  The Spartans did this with the Helots.  “European” colonialists did this to the rest of humanity.  It allows people to avoid issues of elitism and inequality and gives rise to quick convenience because one can easily become a king by having less privileged peoples do all the work while one reaps all the reward.


Judging based on superficial traits also masks more sinister personality types within our own “races” who are far more different from average humans than average humans of different races are to one another, in my opinion.

As an analogy, it’s easy to miss the fact that underneath the superficial similarities of aquatic animals with fins, dolphins and whales are actually more closely related to us than to fish.


Anybody who’s had to deal with narcissistic/sociopathic/elitist personalities knows it’s better to be trapped in a room with a kind person of any “race” over such malevolent spirits.

Selfishness Destroys Capitalism


Everybody is always naturally taking themselves into account without even thinking about it at the deepest level. We unconsciously assess what will allow us to survive.

However, some people help others to help themselves (though they are not consciously thinking about it that way, which is normal.) Others are programmed on the deepest level to hurt others to help themselves or to pretend to be altruistic when they are not. This latter form of selfishness which seeks to hurt others to get ahead is the one we pretend is actually a good thing that will benefit humanity when, by definition, it cannot.

The type of selfishness that hurts others to get ahead is (inherently) never a good thing and will always be considered evil. Even in competition, there must be rules of fair play. Immoral selfishness seeks to break the rules of fair play and then brainwashes humans into thinking that it’s a good thing to break such rules.

Capitalism requires fair competition to work properly. It’s best if customers know which retailer is selling a product for the cheapest price right away. Would the government ever invest in a website that lists the lowest prices so customers can get the best product for the lowest cost, forcing less efficient businesses to change?

Of course not • because that would encourage fair competition and fair play and very sinister pathologies do not like that. They want an unfair environment that only benefits those who argue for the necessity of unfairness under the guise that it will benefit humanity in the long run when (by definition) it will not.


Altruism: E.g. I help a feeble, elderly man walk to a destination.

In the long, long run, I do benefit from this kind deed but not always on an easily or immediately detectable level. (I don’t need to consciously think about it this way either, but it doesn’t hurt. The true mechanism granting benefit is so advanced, Buddhists refer to it as receiving benefit for good karma.)

Fair competition: E.g. A race to the finish line.

This is the type of competition that would ideally drive a properly functioning capitalist society.

Sinister selfishness: E.g. Taking a crowbar to somebody’s knee before a competition or giving myself a head start while pretending people who didn’t beat me just didn’t work hard enough.

This is the type of selfishness that people argue will still be beneficial. It won’t. It messes everything up and only results in elitism and a nobility willing to maintain such sinister backward logic.

The only capitalism I favour is High-Efficiency Capitalism where nobody is poor, inequality is always capped, and people compete for RELATIVE rather than absolute wealth.

And, NO, feeling good about doing good for others does NOT negate an altruistic act. That positive feeling is what maintains altruism in many cases. There are deeper levels of sacrifice that are more painful, but on a deeper level, even these acts are rewarded (though on that level, very few consciously think about it that way because reward may only be granted in an unforeseeably distant future.)

A split in the left.


Update (Dec. 12, 2014): I realize those who oppose democracy are complete scammers trying to defend the property of the rich against the will of the public.

Anti-Democratic Anarcho-Capitalism: Total Scam


There is a very problematic split when it comes to true left-wing ideology, in my opinion. There are those who favour direct-democracy and regard it as a form of anarchism and those who think even direct-democracy is not true anarchism (ie. those supporting voluntaryism as the only form of true anarchism.)

This is problematic because two groups opposed to elitism and state control are in serious conflict.

Direct-democracy advocates think current voting within representational democracy is basically “rigged” by multiple forces that only give voters the choice between “night” and “later that night.” However, the answer to such things is greater public involvement and demands for more direct voting on issues.

Voluntaryism advocates seem to move in the exact opposite direction. They want to cast off the shackles of any form of control including that of the general populace altogether. They want people to abstain from voting as a way to protest unfair control. However, in order for voluntaryism to work, the majority of people must naturally adopt the same basic principles and assumptions (which is not impossible seeing as how people are so good at conforming to popular ideology.) Voluntaryism works on unstated assumptions: certain ground rules must be naturally assumed and agreed upon by enough people wielding enough power to maintain a framework where people act like a single organism in their willingness to respect one another as individuals. It might be the truer form of anarchism in that sense (and a form of unconscious democracy, in reality.)

However, from voluntaryism, people have the natural right to congregate and form democratic establishments that hopefully respect those who choose not to participate in such things.

At the end of the day, the public still needs to be made highly aware of the possibility of this type of set-up to the point enough people stop listening to the current establishment.

(The fact I oddly already feel in-tune with such a notion says that we as organisms are likely able to adjust to multiple forms of social organization.)

Thinking Challenge


Most American scientists would agree that there is a very slight probability a person could walk through a wall based on current quantum mechanical interpretations.

However, most American scientists have the tacit assumption that there is no chance whatsoever that the United States of America could possibly be anything less than a force for good and benevolence in this world.

Why is that?

Girl Ejected from Prom for Arousing Pervy Dads


This just gives more credence to my theory:

Reversed Sexual Repression

The Undie Drawer

A really insane new story is making the rounds right now, published by a young woman who was kicked out of her prom for supposedly forcing a bunch of on-looking fathers to experience ‘impure’ thoughts.

View original post 404 more words

Reversed Sexual Repression


The high level of consciousness that scripture comes from knows that almost all evil is the result of humans wanting to reproduce themselves at the expense of others.  Some of the purest and most virtuous human beings are those that give up their reproductive advantage and sacrifice for the group.  However, this doesn’t mean sex and sexuality are bad things.

Humans are products of biological reproduction.  Humans can do good as well as evil.  Thus, human decency and compassion can also be selected for within the propagation of the species.

The idea that all sex is bad and that not having sex is a virtue unto itself is a misconception, in my opinion.

Worse is that men have punished women for their own lust, rather than punishing themselves.

Basically women are forced to walk around like this: …

… because it’s too inconvenient for men to walk around like this: …

…, in my opinion.