People Who Can’t Accept That the USSR Was Not Communism or Equality Are Not Fit to Teach.


It’s horrendous that Western educators have been propagating such a blatant and horrendous lie that the USSR was actually redistributing wealth equally amongst all of its citizens. It’s horrendous that millions upon millions of students are being fed this lie throughout junior high, high school and post-secondary.

It’s horrendous that every Western (and Soviet) media outlet fed this lie to the public.

It’s horrendous that all of these “fact and evidence”-based atheists suddenly turn tail and run when it’s time to advocate for evidence that actually opposes elitism.

Click for full-sized image.

Click for full-sized image.

Property Rights and Academic Titles


All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.

Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.

I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things.  Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.

One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.)  This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people.  If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.

Another idea is to not even have formal academia.  People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts.  People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes.  If they do not, their creations will flounder.  It’s as simple as that.

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.)

Islam: Religion of Violence


A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. 
-Richard Dawkins

It takes a certain level of intellectual sophistication to look at the world through a lens of reason rather than give into prejudice that serves only to convenience an undiscriminating mind.  As of late, New Atheism and its proponents (Harris, Dawkins, Maher and the following they’ve amassed for themselves) have come under heavy fire for what is perceived as “knee-jerk anti-Muslim bigotry.” Such criticism likely stems from the media’s oversight of the general public’s emotional vulnerability to isolated scenes of violence directed towards Muslims.  This has been exacerbated by what can only be described as ultra-left-wing sentimentalists—many stemming from Hollywood’s spare-time-“intellectuals”—who have abandoned reason and hard evidence for misguided notions that blind sympathy for all “others” necessarily equates to virtuous liberal sensibility.  One must temper impulse with reason and take a solid look at truths we don’t always want to acknowledge.  As the following article illustrates, evidence and reason would lead a rational mind to conclude that Islam, exceptional among Abrahamic religions, naturally incites violence within its followers:

Why Terrorists Attack so Often: Believers Abandon Reason, Science and Evidence

One continues muddled in the grimy depths of ignorance without taking a clear look at Islam’s brimming track-record of being the single common denominator in acts of terror and extremism throughout history:

For centuries during its prominence, Muslims have posed a serious threat to the Roman Empire and terrorism stemming from Islamic tribes, requiring the need for exorbitant Roman military expenditure, is cited as a contributor to the once all-powerful empire’s decline.

In fact, one can see documentation of raids by rogue Muslim seafarers on Eastern Mediterranean empires as far back as the mid-14th century BCE.  As with Rome, the number of Muslim groups that banded together to carry out these attacks increased consistently until the collapse of Bronze Age civilization within the region altogether.

And nobody can deny the extreme threat Islamic nomads from the North posed to ancient Chinese dynasties, requiring countless man-hours, resources—even human lives—to constantly build, rebuild and repair thousand-kilometre stretches of defensive barrier.

Thus, recent science and evidence alongside countless documented examples throughout history points to a single conclusion which I’ll let the critical mind of a rational reader reach for itself.



My greatest irritation is the extreme hypocrisy in society’s fussiness over perfect language, spelling, and grammar which always fails to include precision in terminology that opposes state dogma.

Do scholars ever write articles discussing “North-Korean variants of democracy” or “democracy with North-Korean characteristics”? Of course not.  It’s obvious to anybody that democracy is merely being abused and exploited by a regime that cares nothing about its people to maintain power.

Sinister regimes will always use something positive to mask the fact they have no intention of actually implementing such things.

Everyone can agree on that.

So why do people imply that Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot were genuinely interested in trying to implement real communism/socialism?  Just like North Korea declaring itself democratic or the phoney elections held by authoritarian states, there is only the desire to pretend one is implementing socialism on the people’s behalf.

The abuse of the terms “communism”/”socialism” by the West (and the authoritarian regimes) are some of the worst forms of human mind-control.  Educators who are using these terms to describe the USSR or Pol Pot’s Cambodia are genuinely brainwashing children, harming society, and engaging in Orwellian-style thought-control.

The first thing that pops up when I type “communism” into Google:

Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

Does that at all sound like the USSR, China, North Vietnam etc.?

But despite the extreme need for precision in language, no scholars, academics or educators bother bringing up the fact that these authoritarian regimes inherently could not be communist by definition. It’s like saying “authoritarian democracy” or “democracy with authoritarian elements.”

There are no excuses for abusing terminology in this fashion. How could Hitler’s Nazi Party and the USSR both be examples of socialism? Just looking at the basic definition of socialism, one can tell that neither are socialist. Every educated man and woman wants to pretend that abuse of language will lead to the destruction of society, yet none are willing to sacrifice their position within their academic circle by pointing out the simple, basic truth that these terms have been exploited by the West and the Eastern regimes to justify control.

Is everyone too lazy to put their heads together and come up with new terminology that is actually accurate? When it came to quantum mechanics, everybody was willing to get together to sort out how the entire physics community should interpret the new scientific research/data. But nobody can put their heads together to figure out that people will say whatever it takes to get themselves into power.

One could call it: “Stalinism,” “authoritarian exploitation,” “intentional impoverishment,” “Stalinist classism,” “Maoist elitism,” “Pol Pot’s exploitation of socialist ideology,” “lying,” etc.

At the end of the day, anybody who thinks the USSR was an example of communism or socialism is either:
a) not intelligent enough to be discussing the issue on an academic/political level, or
b) using their intelligence to purposefully lie to the public.
Either way, people like that should have no place in academia, education or the political arena.

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?


When China moves, it will move the world.

-From the Soong Sisters film (2007) where the quote is attributed to Napolean (So many quotes are improperly attributed nowadays, I’m not sure if it’s actually true…)

China is a big country inhabited by many Chinese.

-These words of wisdom have been attributed to Charles de Gaulle

In that vein, I think China should arrange for a single national holiday where all Chinese people are coached to walk in perfect unison with one another just for the heck of it 🙂

Don’t act like you’re not just as curious as I am…