Instinct versus Cuture, Nature versus Nurture, Genes versus Environment, Race and Racism, and Having Children - or not
This conversation and some others, including offline conversations and private
emails, caused me to sum this up in a very clear way for anyone interested,
and/or for anyone who'd think to try to cubbyhole me into "taking a stance"
or "choosing a side" on these issues. As you will see, there is no conclusion
to the "either/or" of this issue - or non-issue. :) In the end, my stance
is: do what you want, feel what you feel - and never think that these things
stay the same from day to day. To try to make it consistent is just another
way to repress yourself with a self-made straightjacket. That, my friends,
is the Satanic view - gee, how terrible.
This first needs to be explained because it is mentioned and it is important:
DEFINITION OF: NORM OF REACTION.
This is a standard concept in developmental biology. This is also a highly
sophisticated concept and not easily explained. I will try to make this very
One might say that "norm of reaction" could mean the variations a species
is capable of, but this is far too broad and could involve an actual change
in genes resulting in the variations. In other words, your genes are different
from mine, therefore we look different: that is NOT "norm of reaction."
That's variation; the genome is different yet we are still the same species.
But because the actual genes are different, we look different. This is NOT
"norm of reaction." Norm of reaction is not about genes. Norm of reaction
refers to when the genome is of the SAME SPECIES, i.e., more or less the same,
or even identical as with clones of plants and flies, the most famous example
being the yarrow plant. If you grow clones of one yarrow plant at different
altitudes on a mountainside, they grow into plants that look so different,
leaf shape, size, height, it is so wildly different - and NOT gradually different,
that one would think these are completely different plants. Let me focus on
the clones because their genes are identical. You can see that an organism
develops differently in different environments, so long as they are
not lethal environments. There is a RANGE at which the organism can develop
different wings, eyes, leaves, etc; drastic differences show up. Sometimes
the difference is so great that you are convinced it's a different species
on sight. There are some very great norms of reactions. Nutrition and environment
cause these vast differences to show up - EVEN IN CLONES with plants; the
genes are identical yet, due to nutrition and environment, they look radically
different, so different that they are often wrongly considered different species,
genera and families! Some characteristics, e.g. with fingerprints, are so
small it's not notable, but some characteristics are so great, like leaf shape
or wing shape that you think you are looking at different tree or animal.
In the case of human beings, we know NOTHING about the norm of reaction,
we have done no experiments, we can't even discuss it except where you know
there is no really big variation. We are not allowed to subject humans to
different temperatures or deprive humans of this or that nutrient, to find
out what the norm of reaction is in humans. Again, this has nothing to do
with genes. It's not a genetic difference. It is a purely environmental effect
and it can be extremely drastic. We know there are many variations of humans,
we drastically look different to each other. However, we have NO idea what
amount of that difference is due to genes or norm of reaction due to environment.
We DO NOT KNOW. It is easy to say "oh, it's genes." But there is absolutely
no proof of this. You'd have to take an embryo or zygote in a mother
and subject the pregnant woman to extremes of environment, like low oxygen,
extreme cold, drastically different nutrition, daylight 24 hours a day, night
24 hours, things like that.
It is called the NORM of reaction because it is normal. You get wild types,
radically different types of organisms; they are NOT deformed or sick at all,
they are totally healthy. There is no genetic difference. You can't say which
one is the "right one" since they are ALL normal. Geneticists have tried to
say that "one type" is normal, the true species representative. This proved
to be 100% wrong - it ALL depends on the environment. Geneticists have always
tried to pick one e.g. fly to say "that is the normal fly, the perfect example"
but this is 100% wrong. They might see another of the same species of fly
with different wings, monstrously big - and he flies differently. Geneticists
have thought that this was an abnormal fly. This is 100% wrong. That other
fly is just as normal, in fact he might be CLONE of the first fly that developed
in a very different environment. There is a RANGE of normal. Again, the range
can be so wide that they can look like completely different animals. This
To have or not have children.People brought up mother instinct and
oxytocin, child-birthing pain and girl children playing with dolls being the
possible causes of some nubile women wanting to be mothers. People brought
up the possibility that innate genetic disorders of an inheritable kind might
be the thing motivating some women to feel strongly against childbirth. Someone
#3: I am of the school that believes that biology is right, humans are biological
animals with instincts according to their species. I tend toward the belief
that most things are genetically determined and that the environment only
affects the "norm of reaction." If some women hate the idea of having children
that much (and I am not referring to the ones who have the deep desire
for children and then decide it is a bad idea for personal or practical
reasons), if they have such a strong instinct against the natural process
itself, then I do believe it is 100% genetic. I also believe some people are
born gay. They have no choice to change. I believe that IQ is genetically
determined and it definitely counts to show intelligence.
(Note: Half the experts in this field of study also have this view. Those
that violently disagree on the side of environment/nurture/culture are often
called Lysenkoites, especially if they debate using vitriolic polemic and
try to shut the opposition up, often legally or via career ruination. The
term is misapplied. Lysenkoism in the USA is the doctrine that there is no
such thing as race at all, it possibly includes the idea that gender means
nothing, that there are no races at all, and that genes do not determine anything
involving choice, behavior, or thinking, possibly includes gender. Richard
Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene," has the extreme geneticism view. Lysenkoism
is wrongly considered to be the extreme environmentalist/culture view, but
that's what that term means in the USA. The term is from the name of a man,
Lysenko, a botanist. It is primarily due to extreme propaganda on both sides
(both false) that his name got an "ism" tacked onto it and came to mean this
in the USA.)
Someone #3 mentioned the possibility that oxytocin causes the desire to have
Someone #2 mentioned pain in childbirth and during menses (menstruation)
possibly being caused by oxytocin.
But not all women have pain during menses or during childbirth. I don't know
if oxytocin has anything to do with causing the desire to have kids. No one
ever measured this (they SHOULD). I've heard it called the "cuddle hormone"
that kicks in after the child is born, it causes the mother to be motherly.
It does not kick in when the mother beholds a deformed child - she does not
lactate. Hence, missionaries used to see mothers kill such children or "refuse"
to feed them. They didn't refuse. They couldn't feed them.
Someone #2 said:I think that the "mothering instinct" is defined as the desire
to nurture something, be it a child or a pet or even a doll in some cases.
I think that some of this may be innate though, as in a little girl caring
for a doll. But I think a lot of this is learned behavior. Note the example
of young female apes and monkeys in captivity who are so unskilled at parenting
when they give birth that zoo staff have to remove the infant before she kills
it. These females have had very little interaction within their troops where
they would have been able to see experienced (good) mothers in action. Infants
garner intense interest among the females in any simian troop, and amidst
this frolicking good parenting skills are learned. So even though the ape
or the female child exhibit nurturing behaviors, this doesn't mean that they
have the skills to raise a child effectively without killing it.
I know about the apes/chimps in captivity. It's not a good test of such things.
The test would be to have a lost chimp, lost in the wild long enough NOT to
have learned parenting from the chimp tribe. Let that chimp then be reunited
and see what it does. Animals in captivity often won't even breed. They are
in captivity! Using anything they do as a standard of behavior is not a valid
Chimps in captivity, lone captivity or pets of humans, often don't even know
how to have sex when they are released into the wild again - hard to believe,
but true. They have the desire and have no clue what to do with it. They also
have estrus. This observation holds true for primates we've studied, but not
for cats or dogs that are kept as pets. They seem to know what to do when
estrus kicks in. No other cat or dog has to teach them.
Someone #2 said:
I think that humans may still experience this "mothering instinct" in the
form of playing with dolls, keeping pets, and having an affection for children;
BUT I feel that we have moved so far away from the wild state, that most of
our motivations are cultural and psychological. As humans, we can rationalize
our motivations based on our cultural condition and experience.
I disagree and I do so based on the women I've known very closely in my own
family and among close family friends. It seems, based on observation and
what these women said and did, including my wife, that the instinct is to
have something inside, to get pregnant. You'd almost think they were
experiencing something akin to what animals that have estrus experience. Only
after we found out they had conceived, did this raging desire for sex cease.
If that's not instinct, I don't know what else to call it. How could they
possibly know they had conceived days afterward? Yet, judging by their actions,
I'd say on hindsight, they knew. These women, especially back then, were taught
lessons and these and lessons were basically lessons in ethics (Talmud), taught
things in an in-cultural setting in our own schools. You might say that the
ethics and worldview was extremely "left wing." Strong emphasis was placed
on the mind, on education, on using the mind and on controlling the instinct.
To get into a street fight, for us, was the heights of vulgarity and seen
as "like animals." To discuss and debate, that was the Jewish way. It was
no surprise to me, for instance, to find out that Leonard Nimoy was Jewish.
He seems to me to be Mr. Spock no matter what he does. This was the ideal
amongst Jews: emphasis on the mind, control of the body and instincts. That
is what we'd consider a real human being. Anything other than that is "like
an animal" and is looked down upon, whether we'd deny that or not in public.
Left wing people are not supposed to look down on others; but we do this to
a great extent.
Moreover, not all children play with dolls or cuddly things. Even in the
USA. Not all girl/boy children play with gender-role type toys. I personally
know of no woman, (my relatives, myself included) that ever had pain in childbirth
or during periods. I personally ran into this later on, though at first I
thought the women were carrying on as they always did in their own cultures,
being overly emotional and "putting on" an act of some kind; trying to get
out of doing work or going to work especially. I really thought this. I didn't
really believe they were in pain. In addition, we never played with dolls.
We played, as very young kids, with something you can bounce, throw and kick:
a ball. All the girls were what one might call tomboys and we played rough
and wild type running games as well as card games. Boys and girls played exactly
the same with each other - but this was all before puberty. At the
onset of puberty things changed almost overnight; something definitely "clicked
Someone #1 said
If you don't want to breed, then don't. We have too many humans in the world
anyway. Breeding is a natural instinct in healthy animals. If you don't want
to become pregnant because it makes you feel uneasy, maybe that's just "natures
way of telling you" that your genes are not healthy.
That is an excellent point. It is very possible that this kind of feeling
in these women with no mother's instinct is biochemical and completely determined
by genes, bad genes that their instinct tells them not to hand down. There
is definitely a chemical known, oxytocin, that has something to do with a
mother's ability to love her children, or love in general.
Someone #4 said:
Very interesting. Mental illness runs rampant in my family, as does cancer
of the esophagus. I believe I've avoided the former (had plenty of opportunity
to make comparisons). Time will tell about the latter. But I'm probably carrying
some lousy genes. I am capable of loving adults, but not children. No maternal
instinct. Both my parents would have died of pneumonia in childhood, if not
for penicillin. And childbirth has been a problem too. Any child of mine would
almost certainly be a caesarian, like I was (very narrow pelvis). Basically,
I only exist because of modern medicine. My own body has cells that can recognize
the DNA of a virus and go fight it, so I'm quite open to the idea that it
could recognize its own bad genes and choose not to put out the chemicals
that would make me desire my own child. Thank you very much, this is really
food for thought.
No one ever did any kind of investigation into what Someone on here said,
the genetic factor involved, or the hormone oxytocin, as far as I know. On
the other hand, if they did, I never heard of it. We all know that people
with terrible genetic disorders, that know they have them, often DO have kids
and want them. Irresponsible. Some have always thought like a Richard Dawkins
person, even before Dawkins was around. Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene."
The first time I ever opened my mouth about what I thought about Dawkins (I
trashed him), such people called me a Lysenkoite. (See above for definition.)
I do know, there is endoplasmic, cytoplasmic (whole cell, not RNA or DNA)
and mtDNA and nuclear (with DNA) inheritance - and there is culture and there
is environmental niche as I explained in "Tree of Destruction" (Can
be read on www.satanicreds.com under the Socio-political articles section,
scroll down.) However, these might be having an effect only on the "norm of
reaction." Include in the environment RNA viruses that can alter DNA. The
only thing that has ever been studied semi in-depth is nuclear DNA and, recently,
a LOT of mind-blowing things happened to bust up a lot of preconceived theories
It's really not easy to see exactly what makes us do what we do - it's hard
to separate it and look at it. Instinct? Or culture? This is a long, vitriolic
debate. Everyone debating is an expert, too. There is no way to look even
at the mother-instinct-thing if the women live in dictatorial patriarchal
societies. No one, no expert, can say they really know - and experts on both
sides have their proofs - and unfortunately, their agendas. Stephen J. Gould?
Or Richard Dawkins? Which one is right?
Referring to the above mention of Lysenkoism and Lysenkoites and who is saying
what. Since I own everything Lysenko ever wrote, every word, I can explain
this in modern scientific language made simple. Specifically, Lysenkoism would
state: "there is no such thing as race within a species (he was talking about
plants, but we can stretch it to mean humans). There is variation.
The variation could be genetic, but no one has any proof of this at
all; yet they make claims as if they do. This variation could be solely the
effect of the environment on the norm of reaction. The variations can phenotypically
appear to be subject to categorization by people who study, but genotypically
these little cubby holes you categorized them into may prove to be false and
prove to show a whole other way to categorize things. Phenotypically it might
look like another species, while genotypically they might be genetically identical."
That is what Lysenko was saying regarding the plants and flies. He was right.
100% RIGHT. All other things, including propaganda and fights and slanders
and false accusations the likes of which make alt.satanism's worst flame wars
look tame - are ignored. Extreme anti-geneticist environmentalists in the
USA are called Lysenkoites. Extreme geneticist views, such as genetic determinism
fans, are called Fascist, but we all know that. This is why I explained this.
The Race Issue - or Non-Issue.
How do humans categorize race? By looks. Just by looks. How about by blood
types? How about by immunological factors? Nope. Human society uses looks
only to lump people into this or that "race." That is an invalid categorization
in terms of biology, even in terms of genetics. Primitive man did not know
biology or genetics. However, primitive man knew what it was to be attracted
to this type for a mate - but not that type for a mate.
Preaching that, "There is no such thing as race," to the audience is futile.
What are they saying? Are they saying that social constructions are wrong?
People also make a social distinction between a truck, van, car and bus. Yet
they are all vehicles that have a similar function. One is not better than
the other; they are different. Nevertheless, the owner of the vehicle might
think what he has is better than the other things since he chose that for
himself, for his needs. Important note: he CHOSE it, selected it. The
audience will say, "Ok then, breed," "Ok, type." People in society use eyesight,
not smell or any other sense, to sexually select partners. Though pheromones
may be the underlying thing that is making this or that type "look
good" since the sense of smell is the only sense we have that is directly
connected to the limbic brain, the point is still moot to this broad subject
since in everyday speech and in society we categorize people at a distance,
categorize whole nations and live in a society where there are perfumes and
deodorants. Therefore, what pheromones may or may not do is irrelevant to
this conversation right now: humans still go by eyesight - they
look at the person's looks to categorize them into this or that "race."
Just as there are many styles of cars, there are also types of vehicle. Humans
do not mind calling a Nissan Sentra and a VW Bug "cars." However, they'd not
call a Ford Van 250 a "car." They'd not call a public transportation bus a
A group selects for and against characteristics that exist within the group;
the group becomes a tribe, tribe becomes nation. The nation appears to be
homogenous and, within human historical times, there were recognizable "races"
of people all in specific areas, all each in their own places. People sexually
select: this one is yummy, that one is yuch. And so, you end up with similar
looking groups. I strongly feel that pheromones come into play and might
be the real, underlying cause of, "I love that group" and "I
hate that group" feelings. I would say that appearance alone and selection,
not so much the environment except for the effect in terms of norm of reaction,
is what has caused these variations to appear in humans. Very few of these
variations might actually be genetic. I.e., there is NO GENE for browns eyes,
blue eyes, etc. Surprised? There are a bunch of genes involved in making melanin.
They first start to make this melanin in the ectoderm of the zygote. Then
the iris is formed from little pieces of the ectoderm, but your tongue, e.g.
is not. The tongue is formed from pieces of the mesoderm. There are a whole
group of genes that act in dosages, a large dose would make what comes from
the ectoderm darker. To think there is some gene for blue eyes or brown eyes
is a Mendelian error.
It is proven wrong now. How many genes you have for this dosage for melanin
is genetic and depends solely on how many you get from your
Now, if a person, or if social custom wants to categorize these variations
into races - or use the word breeds, different breeds - well, is that valid?
It is a thing humans DO based on the very thing they use to sexually select
partners to mate with. They use EYESIGHT, not smell or anything else especially
if they categorize someone at a distance. Since the eyeball sense, the "lookism"
alone, ends up being connected to sexual selection, then it DOES have impact.
So one might say this: there is no such thing as race. But then, yes there
is. It depends on what connecting factors you tag onto it. Include the sexual
selection aspect and you see it is important. Scandinavians and Chinese did
not get to look the way they all look, recognizably different from each other
and recognizably similar to their own citizens by NOT selecting what turned
them on sexually. And that is what one might call - BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING
- the prime directive.
These studies are stifled for one reason and one reason alone: the agenda
of those that are almost religiously "anti-racist." Which brings us to the
problem of what exactly causes racism? Michael Levin (Why Race Matters)
has his theories, and they are very good, imo - but definitely not politically
correct. Gould also has his theories (Mismeasurement of Man) and they
are also very good - and they are very politically correct. Both men are experts.
Those are only two men whose books are very easy to read. There are many
experts on both sides of this argument.
I have a theory too and it's very simple. It has to do with behavior, pheromones
and ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Racism exists in capitalist societies. Racism exists
in societies where people have to compete for resources, including jobs. Racism
exists when the area is crowded. If it does not exist, it benefits the capitalists
to make it exist. That racism comes into play so easily and is, at the same
time, so hard to eradicate tells me there is a lot more to it than
just a passing phase of philosophy or ideology. I refer back to the "LOOK-ism"
concept and sexual selection. Sexual selection can extend into friend selection,
community selection, and so forth. Though there may not genetically be races
as we categorize them, there are indeed races in this other sense.
I don't like it when people on the Dawkins side, or Lumsden and Wilson side,
or Levin or Rushton side (or dare I mention them, even Jensen and Shockley,
Herrenstein and Murray "The Bell Curve" side), are threatened, silenced
and destroyed for having an idea. I don't like it when some person with a
severe case of cranialanusitus accuses me of being a racist for picking up
the arguments of these experts when I feel like challenging a self-righteous,
condescending snob. I STRONGLY object to the people who went after these professors
being called Lysenkoites! I don't care if I violently disagree with the ideas
of these professors. They should have had the ability to let us know the damned
idea before being stifled, let the tests be done. It was due to those that
agree with me doing such repressive actions against these professors, that
led me to get Michael's Levin's book and read it for myself. This is all in
the political arena, btw. It's all politics; it is no longer nature vs. nurture
or any of that. Make no bones about it - it's about free speech versus politically
correct censorship and has nothing to do with science.
And so, since these professors can no longer argue their case, back up their
theses, I can do that instead. I have no job to lose if I do this. What do
I find? I find that none that objected can argue their case - they resorted
to flaming and frothing hatreds. I get a face full of PC garbage - and against
that I DO rebel. I hate it. I get a snob misrepresenting me to an enemy that
stole copyrighted material and used it to slander me with what? RACIAL EPITHETS.
Oh, how hilariously funny this is. Where is my god damned pie? I need to heave
it at the face of these sickeningly righteous PROTOSTOMES. Do they have an
agenda? You bet they do. They have some hard modern genetics to back their
line up: there is no such thing as race - only HUMAN race. True, true. But
there IS the social concept and that is real because it affects us personally.
As I told someone else on here that mentioned "Cult of the Child," in the
circles I have traveled - and I'm a traveler alright (Hard Left, old style
Communist) - I have run into the Cult of the Anti-Child for years. Women are
even accused of having allowed a man rape her, if she is married and has a
kid. I'm serious. "All Sex is RAPE" according to radical Left feminist Katherine
MacKinnon. Now that's nuts - and this is heterosexual women saying this about
male/female hetero sex. Is masturbation rape? Lmao. They call the child a
parasite and go into the same details Elaine Morgan went into in "Descent
of the Woman" or "Descent of the Child" in describing it. They
talk as if it's an inflicted harm. I have never run into the cult of the child.
Ok. Which "view" do I "officially" agree with on here: Instinct versus Culture?
Nurture versus Nature? Genes versus Environment? For some reason, people want
to try to pin me down personally as if "I" constitute the very varied opinions
in the SR organization! Well, they have a "cult of personality" hang up. SR
does not. First of all, on our application we do not ask your race, ethnic
group OR GENDER; that's not considered important in SR. We ask only if you
are 18 or over. Ok. What do I agree with?
I agree with both. I don't know how to explain it, but I see that both extremes
of the "versus" options dialectically bleed into each other, affect each other,
even cause each other. I think nothing about this (knowledge about
our own species) should be censored and I think people that resort to slander
are the worst censors on the planet. People should be shown both views and
given the freedom of CHOICE to choose which they FEEL is right. I have
flamed, argued polemically, and debated on both sides of the race coin with
people: pro black, pro white, and pro neither - and also anti all. Doing that,
only makes ME (selfish) think more about it. That is highly dialectical though
it might ruffle some poor little feathers.
Someone PC brought up the fact that they can not "figure out" where I'm coming
from on the race issue. They saw me flame whites, they saw me flame blacks
and well well. They thought I was angry? Nah. Where I'm coming from? Well,
heh, I'm a loner on the Wheel of Life and I don't stick myself in paradigms
- that's like being in samsara INSIDE OF samsara - HA! If something looks
like fun to dip into, I do it. If it looks like fun to give a challenge or
smash paradigms, I do it. I always learn something from it. Do others learn?
Sure, some do. Some never will: their emotions prevent them from even thinking
about it objectively.
I explain: When it comes to the all-American "RACE" (non) issue, I can talk
the talk in any given paradigm. I can talk it better than the ones in the
When I talk my own true theory, I find those that THINK they agree with me
and they turn out to be the most suffocating, regulator types agreeing, but
they FOCUS on "RACISTS," they are religiously fanatic AGAINST all racism and
consider some of the most normal things to be "racism," while excusing the
lousiest behavior of whole groups or nations and going on a Jihad if a geneticist
claims the behaviors are genetic. They outwardly agree with me, but inwardly
they are my enemies. I inwardly REBEL against them, whether they agreed with
me or not. They DO NOT agree with me. My theory is about the beauty of the
infinite forms and shapes. My knowledge tells me there has been seriously
deep disenfranchisement on both sides of the black/white/other/etc. issue
and this is NOT going to vanish, especially since we learn history in school.
It's like vendetta. Vendetta's are known to last for generations. The ones
who outwardly think they agree with me have agendas and they are really all
about regulating speech. I CHALLENGE them and oh, I can sure the hell do that
very well - a real diabolos. These regulating PC types on the "left" - who,
imo, gave the left a lousy reputation, are anti-self to a degree that I find
HORRIFYING. I find it only too amusing that one of these protostomes has run
to the very people who have made exclusively racist slanders against me, for
new allies. (A protostome is an animal that has only one opening for anus
and mouth, heh).
The racists of today are at least rebelling against these anti-self types
and the anti self PC crap put into laws as agendas that wrecked lives, neighborhoods
and schools in real life, they rebel against past brutalization that they
were often personally forced to grin and bear. BOTH whites and blacks.
BOTH. BOTH black and white racism is a REaction to DEEP disenfranchisement
on the inner level. BOTH. When both the black and white (and Amerind) start
to whine, however, and play the guilt trip game, that's an attack on kundalini:
I can challenge the white racists by going over to the black side and I can
also challenge the blacks by going over to the white side but the attacks
that cause the eternal ouch on blacks is very different from the one that
affects the whites. Which side am I on? NEITHER.
I can RELATE TO and really FEEL both sides - empathy - real empathy. I can
usually "speak" their side better than any of them can themselves due to not
BEing in their paradigm. I'm neither white nor black - it's easy.
Someone PC asked:
And what of the "cause" of "fighting racism?" It is self-serving to fight
racism. I said:Is it? Well, that depends on who is being self-served, no?
Yes! That is a circle that goes round and round and goes nowhere. You fight
it how? Legislating laws against speech? People learn to lie. Legislating
laws against discrimination? People do it in more insidious and subtle ways.
How can you fight racism? By applying education? And what will you say? "There
is no such thing as race?" (See above on experts on both sides.) "It's wrong
to hate for that reason?" Oh, is there another reason? HA! When it is right
to hate? We are Satanists, hello. We don't repress hate, we let it go, release
it, get it out. Yeah, but what if you hate the group DESPITE the fact that
they "JUST HAPPEN TO BE" of this other noticeable race? What if you hate the
group for real wrongs they've done to you personally? Then you do, period.
There is no right or wrong on here. This goes round and round. People hate
their own brothers. Same race, same family. You can't stop hate especially
if there is a REASON for it (See above about disenfrancisement.) The cause
of anti-racism? It's a LOST cause.
The thing to fight is on LABOR issues, on health care issues (see above on
capitalist societies and racism.) Putting guilt trips on people is a very
dangerous thing to do causing DEEP repression: it backfires with genocide.
That IS the catharsis. Witness the catharsis. When times are bad regarding
cost of living, jobs, all that real stuff, it would be WISE of any minority
group to exit stage OUT of any country where they are the minority. If not,
the predictable might very well happen.
I got lectured on how "bad" this looks to others that see it online, me posting
this or that, to this or that person on this issue - and it's all flaming
on all sides too. Oh, do flames look bad on usenet? Bwhaha. I care? Someone
else worries (?) that I have no real opinion, I'm not making any real stand.
And yeah? I have an opinion (see above). What stand? Taking a stand on this
non-issue is like jumping into a level of samsara beneath samsara. The stand
goes nowhere, means nothing. Fix the society, labor, cost of living, all that:
and racism will vanish. Like MAGIC. There is also RATIONAL racism that Dinesh
DeSousa (from India) talked about - it exists for very real reasons. And then
there is the irrational kind which erupts every time the economy sucks. Fix
Copyright 1995-2003 Tani Jantsang
Visit: Satanic Reds