An open letter to Kobe Bryant

You are angry that there are people telling you to shut up and dribble . Fair enough, sounds demeaning. But did you even for a second consider the implications behind this? People like you because you are good with the orange ball. It in no way means you are good with words, knowledgeable in politics or able to come to the right conclusions from such points. You could as well be but your insistence to speak from a position of authority is really not backed up by anything here.

But wait, maybe you are using your platform? Speaking for the folks that can not be heard? Well, how about you bring up those folks and let them speak? Because you do realize how it sounds when a black man worth 350 million talks about racial injustice and inequality to white folks who barely meet ends and still spare $200 to watch the NBA? These are the people that made your 350 million bucks Kobe. And do you know how these money gathered? By digging in mines, cleaning up the city streets, putting their lives at risk so that you can walk around safely, by cultivating the crops we get for almost free. That sounds like a real inequality to me. These guys left their health at the bottom of some hole for a few bucks. And from those few they most likely took away 200/month so that they can watch you. Watch you play ball. Play ball for 350 million.

Inequality has many axes. If you bring up just one and keep linking it to skin colour that's racism-plain and simple. Social Justice circles are coming to terms with that lately and more and more openly admit their "whiteness" talk is racist and they are racist themselves. It's up to you and the rest of us to decide where we stand on the issue.

Quick debunking of the "that wasn't true communism" meme

The neo communists like to repeat the "that wasn't true communism" meme to oblivion. As someone who spent his childhood under one of those not-so-real-communist regimes my childhood I can see what is wrong with this claim with ease. Let me entertain just one argument that does not require deep knowledge of our recent history tho. Approximately half of the world's population lived under communism until the 1990's. As any governmental system the authorities in these countries were recruiting people to do the planning for how and where the state would move. There was more or less a system of meritocracy in choosing the rulers of these countries too(we can all agree that never goes just one way-full nepotism or full meritocracy). Communist countries had intelligentsia that was in no way worse than the one the West had. Given how one of the most prominent American thinkers of the 80's was Camille Paglia with her "deep analysis" of the works of....yes, Madonna, I'd say ideological rigor actually did a huge favour to the East. Now if you think of this-selected from 2 bill + people that's awful lot of smart, little cogs in the wheels of the communist machine. And all these cogs have read and well understood the works of Marx and Engels. Now how did none of these thousands and thousands of really smart people not understand their countries only call themselves communist but are in fact on wrong track? Well, if you read even a tiny bit of history of these countries(and this tells you how "well read" the neo commies are) you would know and understand why that was. But if you are a know-it-all 19 year old you think that you actually vastly exceed all these people and you understand the world better than they did. This is the only logical explanation of the "that wasn't true communism" meme-you know it all and they didn't. The fact that just a tiny drop of self reflection should make you step back and look at your argument from more than one angle but they fail to do it is telling of the integrity and cognitive ability of those throwing it around.

The progressive religion and the sinners who repent

I call it the capo paradox because the first time I noticed it was while reading one of Mario Puzo's books as teenager. There was a glaring error in the story line-the mafia boss was really pious and he was donating to the church and to widows. Didn't he know this is a zero-sum effort? If God exists he'd operate by the rules described in the bible, therefore tossing small percentage of your wealth to those in need would not excuse the horrible deeds a mafia boss does. So why waste time and energy? I took it for bad research or lazy writing and was quite surprised couple of years later when I found that indeed mafia bosses in Italy are exactly like that. I took it as proof that no one thinks of themselves as a bad person-when faced with overwhelming proof the boss "elevated" in his mind some activities making them equal to the sins he commits  but with opposite sign. As I was growing and learning of the world around me this guess of mine seemed weaker and weaker-the chain of conclusions wasn't really solid. But certain practices I learned about seemed to confirm the final result.As I witnessed the turmoil that the transition to democracy in Eastern Europe became I was acquainted to several people managing one or another form of criminal activity and they all suffered from the same syndrome. They'd sell drugs to minors and by the end of the year donate millions to an orphanage or even secure the living of a widow whose husband they "ordered" themselves.

Al Capone was paying for his infamous "soup kitchens" where the poor could get food for free

There are many other facts and stories I could bring that are common knowledge and back my claim.
The pedophiles fate when imprisoned for example-they often suffer from nasty "incidents" organized by their outraged cellmates.The prison authorities often work on segregating them from the "normal" criminals for their own safety which serves as confirmation that the attitude is widespread. So we have a bunch of murderers and rapists jumping on the chance to prove they are not as bad as the world thinks them of. As if I can hear them:
-See, we hate people that hurt children, we're not that bad!

The options to extend this list are almost unlimited and I'm sure those reading already thought of examples I didn't figure out. Saddam insisted on gender equality something quite revolutionary for the Middle East, Lenin loved children(not in THAT way you perv) and Nero was making many amends trying to improve the living of the poor

We got the same thing with SJW's, they "elevate" racism, homophobia and all the others, you name them. As long as they condemn all those -isms and -phobias they can't be the bad guys, right?
Having in mind that the darkest secrets in our lives are more likely to remain secrets it is surprising the amount of how many of the actively barking SJW's in the last 2 years have had serious morale flops reported about them. The list here is easy to compile tho will probably never be full:

>Sarah Nyberg-the famous fighter against GamerGate
>Lena Duhham-the famous feminist (if Trump wins one of the reasons will be her promise to move to Canada if this happens)
 >Jian Ghomeshi-supposedly fighting for equality with women, while the rape accusations against him remain questionable there is no argument over the fact that he used the position he obtained through such talk to abuse and degrade women as shown during the trial.
>Hugo Schwyzer who also claimed he puts women on pedestal until exactly the opposite has been proven


Just as I was writing this the last in the chain blew up: Matt Hickey, a progressive dudebro with aspiring career as a journalist has been caught red handed lying to random girls online and soliciting them to have sex with him.  Wait, the same Matt Hickey that the gamer world learned of when he viciously criticized Microsoft for throwing a bunch of half-naked dancers at a party they staged during the Game Developers Congress? As you can see from the following Matt seems to hold women in especially high regard and insist they receive all the respect possible even if women didn't ask for it specifically:

The doublefaced life of Matt is not the topic today tho it is worth noting how his acts are exactly the opposite  of what his ideals he claims are. What I want to underline is how nicely he fits the narrative, he is just another mafia boss that after murdering and destroying lives throws some pennies to the church and believes he's paid his due.

Why there were no revolutions in communist societies

Alright so first off the western idea that left means anti authoritarian is ridiculous. To pursue the idea of communism you need continuity. That by itself excludes the idea of democracy. What if people change their ideas tomorrow and vote someone that drops the course towards communism? From practical point of view you have all that time and working hours invested that will go to a complete waist if you decide to change the political regime. From ideological point democracy sounds even worse-you are going in the only right direction out of many possible, why would you let someone that has the wrong direction in mind to the elections? Therefore a communist regime has to be a dictatorship and other political parties can not be present under such rule.I can not claim it was on purpose nor that it was natural political evolution and instincts that lead to it but here is how that dictatorship was imposed and masked.

So we actually had a concept of authority just like in the writings of Confucius. Parents are superiors of their children and this can not be questioned. Same goes for teacher and his pupils, for the director and his workers, the party leader and well...everybody else. That was something never directly set in stone, but always implied-fear and listen to authority as it is all the same figure, the harsh but fair father that may spank you from time to time but does it only for your own good. And I mention spanking for a reason-it may sound shocking to western liberals, but in communist society it was considered a-ok to hit your child and there could be some questions raised when a teacher does it to a student but it was generally deemed acceptable as well. This authority stemmed from the state which was giving almost unrestricted rights to the superior. Parents and teachers could spank the kids under their supervision, the general could tell a soldier to sacrifice his life the director could tell his workers to do weird, unrelated to the job activities if he deemed such activities ideologically fit. That hierarchical approach was everywhere. Kids were not allowed to talk back to grown ups-it was unthinkable. Workers had utmost respect and feared their directors. And everybody feared and hated the "political representatives"-people whose job was mainly to sniff and snitch any sign of dissent. Yes, every big enterprise-scientifical or economical had one of those.

And then there was the fear. The fear that propaganda was masking as righteousness. It was in part to aimed to create and support authority and in part to suppress those that have dissenting thoughts. Every repression was clearly described instead of being hidden. Instead it was explained, reasoned. Since day one of your life you were told that there is no other course of history, that history is linear and you were lucky to live in the most progressive part of the world. You were reminded of all the blood spilled to get your nation to where it is(the blood of those disagreeing being left out of the story ofc) and of how bad the poor in capitalist countries have it. So isn't it only natural if someone tries to put a stick in the wheels of history that the state punishes him viciously? After all they are robbing the future of the children. In other words-the classical sophistry where a chain of reasonable, undeniable conclusions is based on a falsehood at the very first claim in the chain.

So it was all about fear and respect, you could see them everywhere. The police were allowed to beat suspects-common knowledge even if it has never been put in a law.A schoolmate of mine slapped back his teacher-his life was ruined forever-we were 6th graders and we knew that with our bones, no need for logic to get involved. Now, I m not saying a kid hitting a teacher should be tolerated in any way, but was the punishment equivalent to what he did?The fear had 2 dimensions. One the fear of authority I described + the fear of the "other".

.I remember that fear going to my first day at school. And do notice I was from a privileged family-an ex-partisan granddad and the other being member of the party's nobility, being on top of that in every wonderkid program the country had. The teachers were encouraged to express and assert their authority over the kids however they please. Some were slapping, others were yelling at their students. There were those that chose not to exert their "rights" ofc, no one was telling them they had to act as dictators in the classroom but no one was telling them they shouldn't either. That was the stick. The carrot was endless propaganda against anything that was considered enemy of the state or idea that could swerve the nation from the historical course it has taken. 

Teacher explaining in class about religion: It is a silly prejudice like knocking on wood, we don't persecute it since we're civilized society. Example kids would be those crazy 20-30 fanatics that stay up whole night waiting for some miracle to happen in the church on Easter(referring to an Orthodox tradition where you light a candle at midnight on Easter's eve). There are policemen monitoring that fanatic behaviour ofc, since these people are dangerous but they are more crazy than dangerous so we just watch that they don't succumb to foreign propaganda and start acting against the state.

Notice how between the mockery and contempt we got subtle threat here? It was a real thing-the fact you are a kid was of no excuse. Remember/know of this logo? It was edginess in the West but a neighbour got 1 year ban from school

for carving it on his school desk. That technically meant he had no life ahead of him. He just thought rock and roll is cool and his life perspectives were destroyed because of that. In our early program core element was also reading about Pavlik Morozov-a kid who betrayed his father. The father acted against the state. The implication here is quite clear-we get gradation of authority. Your father is important of course, you love for him is important but it is not sacred. One individual can not outweigh the society. Those who chose to immortalize Pavlik's martyrdom(he was killed, presumably by his angry relatives) never questioned if it is smart to put betrayal on a pedestal I guess.

 

The concept of the "other" wouldn't end here. It was almost everywhere from caricatures of fat ass Uncle Sam spilling the blood of innocent kids in Third World countries  to posters warning you to be aware of the intentions of any foreigner that may start a casual talk with you(as if there were any foreigners visiting the country). The west has sold it's soul for few bucks, Mao is corrupt and Israel is literally Satan-there you don't have to read Pravda from it's last 20 years of existence-I summed it up for you. The propaganda machine would go as far as to try to prove that the working class in USSR has it better than it's counterpart in US. They hate you because you are free, because you know truths that are hidden for them was the constant message trying to bring the fear to personal level. Sounds similar to a cult preacher? In fact it is no coincidence that the communist regimes crumbled one after another in the late 80s. It was the time when even the unemployed in western societies undeniably achieved better living standard compared to working class under communist rule. While the poor people from pre-communist times were alive they would back it with their stories(the middle class was purged so there was no one to tell THEIR stories). The propaganda machine was focusing on poverty and criminality in the West-2 things the communist regime successfully purged.  So it is no coincidence either that the regimes crumbled when the last generation to remember that old state of things was dying.

So what we got so far? State=good, acting against it=evil. And here comes the concept of Stasi. Telling on your neighbour, colleague or even your mom can't be wrong under these circumstances-can it? And indeed it was. At the age of 12 I got new history teacher who became obsessed with my ability to analyze.She would push me into getting more involved with her subject, constantly praise me and promote me to lead various youth organizations, which left me flattered ofc. Until 1 day a couple of secret police guys came home to inform me my future is underlined since the country needs kids with amazing ability to extrapolate from real life facts...guess where they learned about it from. I still remember my granddad stepping between us as if he wanted to physically protect me from the "recruiters". Do note he did so not only as the oldest man in the house(highest authority figure) but also as he was the only one in our family with high enough societal status allowing him to talk back to the agents. But even the small pile of medals he had in store was not enough to deter them, they left me "for now" with the promise that when I reach conscription age they'll be back. Thankfully the fall of communist regimes happened before that. Was my teacher trying to harm by doing this report? I'm still convinced she believed she was working for the greater good-mine and of our country. After all I got recruited for one of the few better paying jobs, let alone the authority and power connected to it. The fact that my grandfather who sincerely believed in communism fiercely opposed such recruitment is telling of the level of trust the current regime had with the citizens tho.

That was a core tenet and a core model of controlling the population-the state is the ultimate good and everyone doing something remotely against it therefore is the ultimate evil. Spying on your neighbour was widespread and encouraged. We had a neighbour trying to prove my mother has "antisocial tendencies" for example being motivated by pure greed and not idealism. He has many times expressed his envy caused by the fact he had to share his 2-room flat with his wife, 2 children and mother-in-law while we had same "luxury" just for me and my single mom.  And yes, I am talking of living space of 65 square meters here btw. He believed if he can prove my mother is not aligning with socialist morale it will be enough to get her expelled from the apartment and in turn allow him to obtain it for himself. To achieve that he would write thorough reports of every party she would have and how many times she came home in a taxi. His latest report was after he...searched our garbage to find out she smokes Marlboro. So he would inform the police of each of his suspicions and grievances: music too loud after 10 in the evening not compatible with morale lifestyle, having money to use one too many times a taxi, and the even more susceptible fact of having foreign currency to buy cigarettes with. If you have undeclared foreign money they can only come from suspicious foreign individuals of course. And why would they give you money if not in exchange for secrets of importance to the national security? 

And here we land to the question of treason and how seriously it was taken. From what I already wrote you get the idea how and why it was deemed so crucial-acting against the state is pure evil as we already established. This is why the secret services had such an important role and also why they were the most feared institution . They could widen the definition of treason and fit you in, fabricate evidence or read the evidence the way that fits them best. Prime example would be the director of a large commercial enterprise executed for "appropriating national resources". In other words "He stole too much money from the state"-claim his daughter objects to this day btw. Either way the punishment went bit behind the lines of what anyone even with slight liberal leaning would consider reasonable. In the eyes of the true believer it was the only logical course of action tho-stealing from the hard earned money of the working class is a direct hit on the bright future everybody worked for.

The last thing preventing people from revolting was bit more subtle. It was a sense of timelessness, of everything being static. And of the state as a giant, untouchable machine driving the people towards the bright future of communism. Nothing changes and nothing can be changed, we were on a ship following the right course and there was no climbing down, no way to make the ship go in a different direction. That was the communist state. The state that was on the top of the giant pyramid of authority. Of course people will think it is untouchable. It was not just that the state had guns, nor that it knew whom you go to bed with and if you fart while taking a poop. It was built in our brains since very young age.

 

 

 

 

Our kid belongs to me!

So yesterday I witnessed a conversation between a friend of mine and his girlfriend-a couple since 5 months.He made a remark about his female colleagues spending the whole break in the toilets(the context was he couldn't pass a gift to one of them ). Somehow his girlfriend saw a generalized statement in that(implication that women spend too much time for banter) and went on a weird tirade.Although she is one of the few Bulgarian girls that I know interested in the rise of 3th wave feminism she didn't adopt the rhetoric we all too well know already, but instead started recounting the pros and cons of both sexes acting as if she was a fan at a football game.She made a list of things men do only because the Patriarchy gives them advantages and another of the sufferings of women under said Patriarchy, but most importantly she went on and on how there are obvious, scientifically proven facts of female superiority. Women are smarter, they are prettier(no one argues this one actually) and they are overall better workers due to being able to concentrate properly unlike men.If those are her beliefs they are bit contradictory but fine by me. What shocked me was when she touched on reproduction rights.If I were trying to defend the cause of feminism I would stay away from that topic or skip it with the usual excuses-"Yeah, sucks for fathers, but feminism is against those laws, they're obviously part of Patriarchy but so hard to fight such laws". To my remark that if people love and trust each other they don't need social sciences to teach them what's good for them and what not(how did THAT manage to trigger her?) she reacted with anger and disbelief.
-There is one thing that makes you dirty swines even-she almost screamed(we were waiting in a cue in McDonald's)-You make us girls cry but when we have babies from you it's time for you to cry. Because I can take my baby away any moment I want and you'll even pay me to raise it away from you.
To add context here she often calls men pigs or swines adding a sarcastic smile implying it's all in good humour-something the people around us couldn't know tho.
Did she realize she went bit too far at that moment? It seemed she didn't, she went on to rant about something else flawlessly.Was that a wake up call for my friend? I' m afraid not.

When Laurie met Milo

So the radical left blogger of some notoriety and huge self-importance Laura Barnett(pen name Laurie Penny) wrote a touching and horrifying report on her night out with Milo Yiannopoulos, the dangerously funny colleague of her from the other side of the political spectrum. Among cheap jabs at his identity as conservative which the latte-ridden, Oxford University educated communist Laurie took you could notice a line threading through the whole article-her hate and contempt of everything that does not fall in line with what she believes is true. I'm willing to skip the fact that she took Milo's desire to troll her for genuine interest(anyone aware of the internet culture in the last 10 years would understand that, even some of my barely literate fellow mmo-gamers), after all self-importance is a viable foundation around which the personality of each rabid feminist's ego is built.

But I'm not willing to write about Laurie and her God-Laurie herself, what I'm interested in is the trends she represents.

It's been the mantra of left-wingers from Shanghai to New York for years that their opponents are the ones willing to misrepresent the truth to get the desired results. Was it true or not is hard for me to judge-I was vested political junky back then, but being a kid and living in a communist country behind the Iron Curtain definitely skewed my perspective. The recent status quo is lot easier to determine, the above quote from Ms Penny is a good example of where journalism is going. The questions that bothers many of us is why are they doing it and I think a closer look at this medium article may provide one of the answers. As usual it skips the part with the facts and presses hard on the emotional side of the story presenting us with a dark, foggy atmosphere where insane villains laugh hysterically while plotting to overtake the world.

Does she really see the world this way? Republicans-bad, Us-good? Sounds bit shallow, isn't it? Especially for someone credited as one of the " most influential figures on the left", which is an accomplishment similar to winning the special Olympics, I know but still...It's interesting how feminism-inspired pundits invented and circulated a new word covering a concept they made up-"othering". Interestingly this is exactly what we see in this article written by someone supposed to be a pen warrior against it. The little, fragile girl in the Wonderland of Evil shrinking between her own shoulders, but brave enough to enter the lair of the beast. And all the big, evil republicans, right wingers and other scum surround her trying to intimidate her. Because we all know they hate women, right? Right?Wrong. The only one othering humans in order to turn them into objects that night was Laurie. And for the very reasons she projects on her opponents-it's easier to hate them that way, after you took the human face off them.

Islamophobia is a meme for low IQ virtue-signalers

Let me tell you about islamophobia. If you throw this term around you are the epitome of everything that went wrong with western educational system in the last decades. The typical know-nothing-but-got-my-diploma cliche. Not sure how it is for you, but for most people religion, political beliefs or musical preferences are not who we are. They might shape us in important ways and be deeply ingrained in us, but they are not static. You learn about religion, politics and music, those are preferences that can be changed.  Are charities fighting cancer bigoted?lLet me remind you we don't still fully understand how cancer works, but from all we know it's probably part of anyone suffering from it more than their political or religious beliefs are. If I believe someone is ill and his disease is contagious does worrying about him make me a bigot? Does being afraid of getting contaminated make me one?

Last thing you should remember: islamophobia has been coined as a term by the Muslim Brotherhood, organisation recognized as terrorist throughout middle east  and parts of Europe and surviving such label in the US due to political games and the money backing them from radical Islamic governments. Same organisation whose manifesto has been intercepted in the 90s and which openly states their plans to lead jihad against the west through deception, destabilizing governments and order we have here. If you spam this meme like a brainwashed parrot you are playing right into the hands of these people.

 Now go fuck off #prayingforNice it will really changed the world.