Insight into the Cultural Marxist mind

A Cultural Marxist is somehow who is programmed to react to certain stimuli with anger or approval based on the perceived bias in the stimuli. The reaction precedes and overrides reason and common sense. The values supported by Cultural Marxists are political correctness, multiculturalism, anti-racism, feminism, gender-equality and climate change to mention a few. An example of Cultural Marxist behaviour is when someone makes a racist comment, or something the C-Marxist perceives as such, the C-Marxist labels the person a racist without thinking. Also if someone says they support a value shared by the Cultural Marxist, such as feminism, then the C-Marxist will feel positively about the other person based purely on this perception. This is vastly different from regular people who are happy to agree when they do so, and disagree when they do so.

Cultural Marxist behaviour is evidence of programming, of brain-washing. They do not think as organic, analog human beings do, rather their minds function more like a digital computer. Cultural Marxism is a devious form of social programming, which originally we learn from the media and laws, gradually acquire into ourselves and before long we begin to infect others if we are not wise to what is happening. C-Marxists exhibit conditional thinking.

Conditional statements are computer programming term. I kind of remember how it works from my junior high school computer class. The logic is quite simple:




For a Cultural Marxist it works as follows: IF that guy is racist, THEN get really angry, ELSE smile politely and engage in smalltalk. END. A normal person might feel offended or angered by what the other guy said, but he would also consider if there was a misunderstanding or something like that, and not try to judge someone based on one comment. A Cultural Marxist only needs to hear a trigger word to launch the program. They also have no understanding of moderation or temperance. Meaning if they perceive someone to be have committed an offense, it matters little to the degree of his crime. Let’s take an example from a victim of Cultural Marxism Donald Sterling, the former NBA millionaire.

He was banned from NBA for life and fined $2.5 million for a “racist rant”. Donald Sterling simply told his girlfriend in a private conversation that he didn’t want her to bring black guys into basketball matches, and not to “broadcast” her association with them. It is sort of weird to me that someone who owns a basketball team sees association with black people embarrassing, but his opinions conveyed in a private conversation is hardly a huge crime. You can say he’s an asshole all you want, but it’s not a crime. His Wikipedia page mentions two accounts of alleged sexual harassment, which sounds worse than his “racist” comment.

I hear other insane Cultural Marxist occurrences, with no understanding that there are other options than 1 or o, almost every week. Cultural Marxists are gun control freaks and their fragile minds cannot even face the notion of a gun. A 10-year old kid was expelled for three days for putting his fingers to the shape of a gun in Ohio. A 17-year old kid was expelled for a year for hugging his teacher. I can sort of understand punishing the guy for hugging if the teacher thought he was creepy, since I think it’s weird a teenager wanting to hug his teacher. But even so, a year? How about give him detention?

Quite interesting contrast, by the way, that I did not think before I typed it. You get expelled for expression of “violence”, i.e. the gun, and for expressing empathy, i.e. hugging. Clearly the people running the US public schools do not want any human emotion from the kids. They should be robots, which Cultural Marxists aspire to be.

Another incident with Cultural Marxists happened to my friends in Hong Kong last year’s Halloween. Some of my friends put on white sheets to dress up as ghosts. Some Americans, black, white and Asian, saw them and angrily called them Klu Klux Klan-members. My friends felt scared and threatened. They all are Hong Kong Chinese didn’t really even know what the KKK is, and I somehow doubt there are many Chinese white supremacists. This little insight of sanity does not matter to the Cultural Marxist, since if you trigger the program there is no amount of reason, logic or reality that can stop them, except maybe a brick wall.

To a Cultural Marxist perception truly is reality, as they lack the capability to reflect whether they are the one being intolerant or not.

Ultimately Cultural Marxism is a binary system of thought. It reminds me of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode 11001001. In it a benevolent race of aliens, Bynars, who have integrated their minds and culture with computers try to hi-jack the starship Enterprise to use it as a backup system for their mainframe computer, or something. When Picard and his crew, the good guys, stop them and ask why they did it, the Bynars say “you could have said no” since to a binary mind there is ultimately only 1 and 0. The human mind is different, unless it is programmed. Of course, the good guys decide to help the Bynars once they hear of their predicament.



Cultural Marxism:


Donald Sterling:

NBA bans Sterling:

10-year-old suspended for making fingers into shape of gun:

Student suspended for sexual harassment after hugging teacher:



Turning Muslims into the new Jews

The active genocidal war against the Palestinians that started a few weeks ago, or whenever, is disgusting and disturbing of course. At least finally people are starting to see Israel for the monster that it is. Alas, as is usually the case, it’s later rather than sooner. This assault was waiting to happen for years.

That said, let’s go back 13 years to 9/11. After 9/11 people began to fear extremist Islam, and governments, especially the US government began to persecute Muslims. The War on Terror was started. All of this had a dual purpose. On the immediate level 9/11 and fear of Islamic extremists was used to start wars in the middle-east and bring forth Orwellian police state laws in the West. This is quite obvious, yet the underlying long time goal seems to be reverse. It’s an interesting mind-fuck. George W. Bush has been quoted as calling the wars he started a crusade, yet on the other hand he called Islam a religion of peace. I believe this duality is deliberate.

The long term goal of all of this has been to disarm us mentally against Islam. At first we agreed with many of the anti-terrorist laws, which persecuted Muslims, because we thought we needed them. Yet over a course of time we began to see the falsehood behind it, how our governments are mistreating Muslims. Naturally, over the course of time we begin to feel empathy for them. We see them as a victim. After World War II Westerners saw Jews as the poor little victim, and thought they could do no harm, yet just look at Israel and the Zionists that control the media. Now more and more people are seeing through the Zionist lies and turning their gaze toward them. It’s becoming harder to manipulate us that way. So they’re coming up with another way.

Islam is portrayed as the poor, misunderstood religion of peace. We are expected to show our sympathy for Islam; to lay down our arms and surrender. But Islam is a religion of conquest. Muslims won’t show friendship or sympathy toward us, if we are unarmed. They will expect us to submit or die, if we won’t defend ourselves against their Borg-like incursion. The globalist elites, the Illuminati, call it what you will, want us to feel excessive compassion towards Muslims, as we once did for the Jews. Compassion is good, but it has to be tempered with reason.

I believe this is why the war on Gaza was started at this time. It is to shift our perception. We should show our concern for the Palestinians, and I have in the past, but we have to also see the inherent manipulation behind, as there is a hidden level to most world events. Anti-Semite is no longer working that well to keep us quiet, so next the fad is Islamophobe or something.

I already discovered one propaganda peace on this war. It’s called “Israeli onslaught shatters western belief that Arabs are source of violence”. It’s allegedly written by a Palestinian-American after the she read an article called “Support the Civilized Man: Defeat the Jihadists.” The article urged to West to support Israel. However, I tried to find this Defeat the Jihadists-article and it doesn’t seem to exist on the internet. The Palestinian-American writer says it was from “some obscure far right-wing news source”. Obscure indeed, care to provide a source? Google only gives several different sites sharing the Palestinian-American’s article, but not no trace of the anti-Jihadist one. Smells like bullshit propaganda to me. The article tries to make Westerners feel like they have been racist and intolerant against Arabs, but that is not an issue. This is not an issue of race, but of religion. It’s the same as with Jews. You’re supposedly racist if you criticize the Jewish influence in society. But isn’t Judaism a religion, not a race? While most Arabs are Muslim, not all Muslims are Arabs.

Don’t buy into the propaganda that is bound to follow this conflict in Gaza. The people behind it are not working in the best interest of the Palestinians, nor yours.



Islam – the Religion of Conquest:

Israeli onslaught shatters western belief that Arabs are source of violence:

Race is a social construct… or perhaps this notion is the construct

You hear every now and then politically correct people, cultural Marxists or other confused people say there is no race. It is merely a social construct. Some guy with a lot of random isolated letters associated with his name, Victor M. Fernandez RN, BSN, writes on as follows:

“The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically,” according to the policy statement issued by the American Anthropological Association. “It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race’ has no validity . . . in the human species.” Race is a socially defined concept that is used to categorize people according to their physical characteristics, and as such, a biologically meaningless category. It would be obvious by now that most people misuse the term “race,” since the ‘pure races’ or genetically homogeneous human populations alluded to, do not exist, nor is there any valid evidence that they have ever existed. Unfortunately, these antiquated racial concepts persist as social conventions that serve to foster institutional discrimination. Race has a social and political significance because of racism, such ideas as biological superiority or deficits among races, the assumption that intelligence, learning ability, physical endurance and such are somehow linked with genetic characteristics that differ systematically between “races,” have often been used to support this racism.

I agree with this statement to the degree that race is tied to culture. To some extent race is simply a decision made by people that a person belong to race A and not B. Race is not purely a biological phenomenon, but it is to a significant amount a biological, as well as cultural, spiritual and intellectual one. Yet not even the difference between cultures cannot be clearly quantified, and different cultures still exist. Even if I play Japanese video games and watch American movies I’m still Finnish. When you compare Japanese and Korean cultures to each other, they are quite different but if you add Germany to the mix Japan and Korea begin to seem more similar. I don’t know what American Anthropological Association say about culture, but I think the same vagueness which affects the concept of race, applies also to culture. Yet both exist.

Culture, and race, cannot be “tested or proven scientifically”, but that only speaks to the lack of sophistication of their science. I would rather argue that culture and race are more aesthetic concepts than scientific ones. You certainly cannot understand culture without trying to understand it from an artistic standpoint. Be it the art, cuisine, music, clothing or architecture of a culture. You cannot reduce it to mere numbers. Race is somewhat more scientific, but not entirely. There is a clear distinction between a Ugandan and a Korean. Anyone with eyes to see can witness this, regardless of what molecular biologists say. Even Chinese and Japanese usually look different to the eye, but when you get down to the nitty gritty details, I can understand that making scientific statements on race becomes difficult.

Later is his article Victor M. Fernandez RN, BSN  says ethnicity is more useful a term than race. comments on the difference between the two: “The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological and sociological factors respectively. Race refers to a person’s physical appearance, such as skin color, eye color, hair color, bone/jaw structure etc. Ethnicity, on the other hand, relates to cultural factors such as nationality, culture, ancestry, language and beliefs.” If that is the definition of ethnicity I must say I greatly disagree with Mr. M RN, BSN.

His article starts with an account of a nurse describing a patient: “56 year old black male”. Then she asks the question “what is race?”. I think she sees quite clearly that the patient is black, or negroid. She doesn’t see his ethnicity. You don’t see his culture, language or beliefs, unless maybe he’s wearing a shirt with the Norwegian flag and the text “Allah tappaa epäuskoiset” (Allah kills infidels, in Finnish) tattooed on his forehead. Then you can possibly make the distinction that he is a Norwegian Finnish speaking Jihadist. But maybe  Victor M. Fernandez RN, BSN would disagree with this definition of ethnicity since it’s from another website, and not his article.

He says: “While race refers to the categorization of people, ethnicity has to do with group identification and reflects the person’s culture.” Later on he says: “Keep in mind the concepts of race and ethnicity is strictly a cultural construct, and there is simply no physical evidence that ethnic groups are much different from one another.” So both race and ethnicity are cultural constructs? So why is it better to use ethnicity than race again? Who the fuck cares. My point is that one’s race is intricately tied to one’s culture. You cannot look at one’s language and culture without taking race into account. It’s like analyzing ice hockey and the relationship between the movement of the hands of the players and the speed of the puck, but ignoring there is a stick between the hand and the puck. It’s nonsensical.

And finally I got my transition to sports and race. Let’s look at couple of basketball teams from the NBA.

Miami Heat

Seattle SuperSonics


Then let’s take a look at two ice hockey teams from NHL.

Chicago Blackhawks

LA Kings


Notice anything? I’ll give you a hint: race. Most basketball players are black, while most ice hockey players are white. I’m using American teams as an example since it’s a multiracial country, whereas in Finland most teams are still white whatever sport we’re talking about.

Let’s take a look at ping pong, or table tennis.

This is Ariel Hsing. An American ping pong player who participated in the London Olympics. Hsing sounds Chinese to me.

Let’s look at the scores at the 2012 Olympics. All of the gold medals went to China. Other medal winning countries were Japan, South Korea, Germany and Singapore. Notice slight racial domination?

I know this is nowhere near “scientific proof”, but more like common sense proof. Notice how black people dominate basketball, whites dominate ice hockey, and Asians dominate ping pong? You could argue that this is merely due to a cultural construct. People born to certain ethnic groups are pressured to acquire interest in one sport instead of another. That is certainly true when it comes to Finland. Ice hockey is much more popular than basketball or table tennis, but people still play all three games. So there is definitely a cultural aspect to interest, and probably proficiency in sports. However, somehow I don’t see those small Asian ping pong players doing very well in basketball, nor the big black guys hunching their backs in front of a ping pong table. That would be the biological aspect of race.

Me pointing out the obvious naturally makes me a horrible racist and I hate everybody. As Victor M. Fernandez RN, BSN stated:  “Race has a social and political significance because of racism”. Yet I don’t know. How does it make me racist to say that Asians excel at ping pong, while Africans excel at basketball and Europeans excel at ice hockey? I’m not saying white people are horrible, because they’re not good at ping pong. To the ping pong internment camps for the weakness of their race! Pointing out natural facts; things that exist in nature regardless of what you and me think about, is not an act of bigotry. Some people prefer ice hockey over basketball, but one should not assume, as the media usually tends to, that this means they want to eradicate basketball or ping pong fans. No sane person thinks like this. The fact is there are various races and they are different from each other. If you want to make a value judgment that one is better than another, you’re free to do so, but it still is not racism. But the fact that races exist and one’s individual value judgment are two separate issues.




Ethnicity vs. Race:

Ping pong 2012 Olympics:

Libertarian Observations from Taiwan

I visited Taiwan recently. I noticed a few examples of how government makes things worse, and private individuals have to do something to alleviate the situation.


Street Restaurant

A fairly pleasant thing was finding restaurant level food on a dirty street near midnight. A few middle aged women had set up a make-shift restaurant on the street. There were couple of long tables with various dishes, most of them looked delicious. The price was quite cheap. I tried the food, it was good and I didn’t get sick. The point is not merely that it was a fun and exotic experience, but that most of the customers were poor people, some possibly even homeless, even though there were some people who looked to have been there just for the food.

I just kept thinking the whole thing was like from a fantasy movie. In Finland selling food off the street like that would never be allowed. I doubt the the women had a permit to sell there. Moreover it would violate various hygiene laws and who knows what. The food was clean enough, but the bureaucratic machine in socialist Finland wouldn’t see it that way. Nowadays most people who work in the restaurant business, possibly even waiters (but not sure), have to acquire some sort of  “hygiene pass”, which means they have to pass some stupid exam and pay money for it. These laws, that most Finns (and other countries with similar legislation) believe are there to protect people from eating contaminated food or whatever, are not really there for that purpose. Their purpose is to siphon money from people and control them with excess laws.

That is not to say that Taiwan somehow a paradise, or necessarily overall a better place to live than Finland, of course not. Certainly the fact there there are so many poor in Taiwan who need enterprising individuals to help them such as in this case highlights that Taiwan has problems. Yet I do see this as example of how most people, if unhindered by laws, or other kinds of threats, will gravitate toward morality and decency. Only when laws make it more difficult for people to act naturally, they become conniving and vicious. This applies to most people, but not all.


Cat Village

Another example from Taiwan is the cat village in Houtong. Houtong is an old mining town that once was prosperous, but the mine was closed down in the 80s. Now the town has countless cats to attract tourists. I love cats and I was excited to go there, however when I arrived in the train station there was cat sleeping on the bench. I told my friend the cat looked like a drunk hobo. Then I looked better and noticed there was drool leaking from his mouth and he looked quite sick. We went further into the town. There were shops selling cat-related trinkets, food and toys for cats and crap like that. Some of the other cats looked sick too.

We went to the other side of the train tracks. It wasn’t as commercial. There weren’t many shops, but most of the cats looked healthier. I came upon a middle-aged woman who was lecturing young Taiwanese that they shouldn’t feed the cats the food they buy in the shops. Its not good, it makes them sick. Her cats were quite visibly healthier. She feeds the cat proper food and generally takes care of the cats, whereas the majority of people on the commercial side of the tracks just exploit the cats to make money. She also told about some “cat madam” who doesn’t live in Houtong, but comes to the town three days a weak to make a TV program. She feeds the cats the crappy food while pretending to be an expert in taking care of them. Or that’s at least how I understood it. My Chinese is quite bad, but my friend interpreted for me.

After talking to the real cat madam we looked around further and saw plenty of tourists feeding the cats the unhealthy food. My friend told a few of them they shouldn’t do it, but they didn’t seem too concerned. We saw signs set up the authorities saying the cats cannot eat the same food as humans eat, but no mention that they shouldn’t give them the unhealthy gift shop food. Of course not. The tourism board only wants to exploit the cats to make money from the tourists, while the tourists only want to have their entertainment, and the local gift shops only want to sell crap and they can do it because of the cats. It’s the shitty trinity of government, business and consumers, and the cats get screwed. The only one who actually did something decent was a concerned and compassionate individual. Not any government agency, NGO, corporation with green values, but a flesh and blood human being.

The lowdown is: fuck you statists. You can go fuck yourselves if you claim that governments are there to protect us, or protect nature or anything like that. Please lift your head out of your ass if that is what you think and take a look outside. There is little difference between corporation and government. Only individuals with some brains, morals and balls can change the world for the better. The only thing people in their ivory towers excel at is sodomy, i.e. you let them rule over you, you get screwed.

The Fourth Abrahamic Religion

The first three Abrahamic religions are, of course, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The fourth one is atheism. While it might seem atheism opposes the three other religions, it’s really a modern continuance of the three. Atheism opposes the older theistic religions in the way that Christianity opposes Judaism, and Islam opposes both of its predecessors in trying to replace them.

By atheism here I do not refer to anyone who is non-religious, but actually materialists or other people who believe in Science! as a religion, or people who see the world and life a mere biological machine. Or perhaps there is a difference between seeing life as a machines and dogmatically believing it to be so. An example of such a person would be Richard Dawkins. Someone who is not religious and does not worship any god or dogmatic system would be an atheic, whereas worshippers of materialist dogma are atheist. Notice the “ism”.

One common feature between all four Abrahamic religions is the digital, i.e. dualistic, way of thinking in the believers. Jews have a very clear sense of being the “chosen ones”, whereas the others are goyim. Christians, while claiming to believe in compassion and forgiveness, have persecuted and butchered countless people over the history for being heretics or infidels. Muslims… well, Richard Dawkins pointed it out well in a TV debate that if a Muslim commits apostasy, i.e. rejects Islam, he will be killed. Non-Muslims are naturally to be subjugated. It is as if there is a binary program in the mind of all true believers in these religions. When it detects a person to be in the same religion, he gets thumbs up. If their religion differs, it’s thumbs down. This is the basis on how you should treat others, no matter their individual accomplishments or morality.

Atheism is similar. It does not tolerate dissenters from the materialist dogma, and atheists often categorize people based on are they atheist or not. Been there, done that. At least atheists tend to be more pacifistic than the followers of less-evolved versions of their religious entity. Yet, atheism, naturally, is pure dogma without God. It eliminates the life giving feature, God, of the Abrahamic religions. While the older religions have been quite irrational and harmful in many ways, at least they understood there is something beyond the physical, something mystical. Life is more than biology, eating, shitting and fucking. There is meaning beyond human constructs. The older religions just couldn’t agree on what that meaning is (their first mistake was to think they should agree on it). Atheism takes that away. An atheist need not be violent and murderous because he is not truly alive, there is no need for him to commit violence, which is something committed by a living being against another.

Compare the Abrahamic religions to animism or polytheism. Those belief systems exude life. Everything has a spirit, or there are multiple gods, which are non-local personifications of nature in spiritual form. There is life and there is the mystical.

Atheism is merely a more or less natural evolution of the “mind-virus” of the Abrahamic religions for the modern age. We don’t believe in miracles and magic. We don’t need salvation or the kingdom of heaven. All we want is our opium and entertainment so we can wither away painlessly. But there are those who don’t see things our way, so they bother our withering. We have to get rid of them.

I am not saying that every follower of these Abrahamic religions is a nasty person, not at all. I’ve met several nice Christians, Muslims and atheists (I haven’t met many Jews, but I don’t really think they’re that different) despite their disturbing belief system. I just think their belief systems are harmful and not quite sane. I’m not a follower of Abrahamic religions, not anymore, (I was an atheist for some time), so I don’t have look at things in a binary way. I don’t have to condemn a person in total just for their beliefs.


Apostasy in Islam:Richard Dawkins extracts some truth from a Muslim: