stand up against anti-racist propaganda

-At least two of my friends have reported that an ethnic studies class they took spread anti-white ideas. For example, white men only date Asian women because they are exotic.

-Once I told an indian dude in judo that black people are usually born with a greater proportion of fast-twitch muscles, suitable for explosive movements like sprinting and jumping. You know what he said? "That's racist!" People these days. I wonder what he would have said if I told him that Asian people are shorter than white people.

-Ethnic studies classes always say this: "Race is cultural, not biological. Everything is a cultural construct, and there are no physical differences." WTF? They are basically denying that white people are taller than asian people, hiding their head in the sand and spreading their gospel that every race is genetically identical.

-Ethnic studies classes always emphasize that every race has the same intelligence and ability. That is almost certainly a lie. We do not have enough knowledge to conclude whether or not all races have the same innate genetic intelligence. Given all genetic differences between races of the world, it doesn't even matter if our DNA is 99.99% the same: Obviously this 0.01% can make a huge difference in facial attributes and bone density, so why can't it affect other things such as learning potential? Here's an analogy: Bubba and Bubbette have two children who are not twins. One is orange and one is blue (note my careful choice of colors). The orange one gets and education and the blue one doesn't. In 1950 America proclaims that the blue one is inferior. In 2010 America proclaims that both have identical intelligence. BOTH CLAIMS (racist and anti-racist) HAVE NO SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE.

-Ethnic studies classes would have us believe that certain minorities, such as black women and Asian men, are perceived as ugly because of the brainwashing media and Hollywood depicting white people as angelic beauties. They never bothered to consider that some people might really just tend to be ugly! Face is an important universal identifier of attractiveness, ingrained by evolution and TRANSCENDING culture, and different races have different faces. They also never bothered to consider that Asians are very non-hairy, which is a FEMININE feature. Females do not have chest hair, and neither do most Asian men. And most girls do not like girly men; this is also evolutionary rather than cultural, for obvious reasons.

-Music classes would have us believe that Western musical harmony is widespread because of cultural imperialism. They say that as babies we would not prefer one system over another. However, let's note some important facts: The Asian pentatonic scale and the Middle Eastern phrygian minor scale are both SUBSETS of Western chromatic tonality! This means that you can create foreign styles with the Western system, but you cannot create Western music with the foreign system. It therefore comes as no surprise that each of these cultures saw value in enriching their music with new colors. In turn, Western music was also enriched with foreign elements, so it's not like the spread was one-directional.

The civil rights movement involved focus on equality for human beings, skepticism towards propaganda like "whites are superior," and committing to what is right. I ask you now to maintain this attitude towards the new rising tide. Remain a TRUE liberal, and don't hop on the bandwagon of liars out of SHARED FEAR of racism.

Music is like food

Traditionally, people liken music to traditional visual arts, such as painting or sculpting. This is rather erroneous. Music is more like food than anything else.

-There is the "composer" (the person who invented the recipe) and there is the "performer" (the person who cooks the food). The composer is credited as the intellectual creator but the performer has the freedom to insert his own artistic interpretations/deviations, just like in cooking. Some "folk songs" (well-known popular recipes, e.g. burrito) have been around for millenia but people are always finding new ways to "remix" them.

-Music and food are both artistic creations that cater towards the masses. We have our Britney Spears (McDonalds), Coldplay (In-N-Out), and Radiohead (Chipotle). The food n00bs who like sugary milk chocolate tend to also like tasteless music. The food pros who dislike sweets usually avoid bad music.

-Often, a band will be famous for one or two songs, e.g. "The Eagles are ok, but their song Hotel California rocks my socks." Similarly, some restaurants are famous for just one or two dishes.

-The average person, upon hearing a song, feels emotions but cannot identify the exact pitches being played. A skilled musician hears a song and knows exactly what notes and chords are being played by what instruments. Similarly, the average person, upon tasting some food, feels some emotions but cannot identify the exact ingredients being used. A skilled chef tastes some food and knows exactly how much salt and what types of oil were used.

-Skilled chefs (such as the ones featured on the TV program Iron Chef) are often creative, thinking of new ways to make their food more uniquely tasteful and beautiful. However, food doesn't have to be cooked by a top chef to be enjoyable; it can be as stereotypical and uncreative as a hamburger or ice cream cone. Similarly, skilled composers strive to find a way to affix a unique sound or style to their music, but some people such as Jason Mraz still find success in the extremely overused I V vi IV chord progression. In either case, whether it is original or stereotypical, the end product must still be enjoyable.

This is why the new 21st century "avant-garde" musicians are going down the wrong path. These people pride themselves with composing music that sounds somewhat interesting and extremely horrible. Imagine if a chef mixed together some orange juice, syrup, vinegar, poo, and eggs together into an ornate bowl and said, "Voila, zis is avant garde! I am proud of my creation because normal people will never eat it!" Perhaps if avant-garde musicians treated their music like food rather than modern art, they would realize that originality isn't everything, and that the end product must still be tasty.


Catering to the inferior half of America

Piracy is not stealing

Using bittorrent to download something is not equivalent to stealing a DVD from a retail store. I'm tired of these public messages that say "would you steal a DVD? Because piracy is the same thing." It's not.

Piracy usually involves downloading something for free that you wouldn't have bought anyway, e.g. torrenting a $500 program that you wouldn't pay $500 dollars for, or even torrenting a $5 movie that you wouldn't pay $5 for.

When you steal, the store or original company loses a physical product, which translates to monetary loss. When you download, you make a copy, which translates to free stuff out of thin air, without any loss for the company (unless you would have bought it if piracy were not an available option, which is rare).

Piracy does create significant revenue loss by discouraging the purchase of items. There are people who used to buy expensive products that have turned to piracy. However, piracy enables the underprivileged to get their hands on expensive programs that they would never have bought.

Example: If you never wanted to buy Microsoft Office in the first place but ended up downloading it for free, then you technically did not decrease Microsoft's revenue at all.

Analysis of the "Saying gay is offensive" argument

In this in-depth analysis, I refute the validity of the claim that using "gay" in place of "stupid" is offensive towards homosexuals.

Please examine the following statements:

"That class is so gay."
"That class is so retarded."
"That class is so stupid."
"That class is so lame."

As you can see, all three statements above are misleading and do not represent the person's true sentiment: that the class is displeasing. "Gay" literally means that the class itself is homosexual, which is impossible because the class is an abstract concept and does not have a sexual orientation. "Retarded" means that the class is mentally ill, which is again impossible for the very same reason. "Stupid" means that the class is unintelligent, which is impossible because the class does not have a brain. Lastly, "lame" implies that the class is disabled, which is obviously impossible because the class does not have body parts.

One can argue that using these words in place of "displeasing" implies that gayness, retardness, stupidity, and lameness are very displeasing attributes. People who are gay, retarded, stupid, or lame are minorities that are being picked on as we use these conventions. While this argument has merit, it must be considered equally for all words "gay," "retarded," "stupid," and "lame," so as to not give an unfair advantage to homosexuals over other minorities such as disabled people. For example, one cannot say that it's alright to say "lame" but not to say "gay," because that would arbitrarily imply that gay people take priority over disabled people, which is DISCRIMINATION.

Because all variants of "this class is displeasing" are equally flawed in technical grammatical logic, opponents of using "gay" in place of "stupid" would have to devote their lives to convincing everyone to say "displeasing," not only in place of "gay," but also in place of "retarded," "stupid," and "lame."

This is silly and unfeasible, and would make everyone sound Victorian and/or British.

Therefore we should keep saying gay.

Morals Make us Fake

Would you sacrifice your dog to save the lives of 3 other dogs? No! If you were Spiderman and you could only choose one or the other, whom would you save: Girlfriend, or little kids? Girlfriend! Would you rather save your mom's life, or the lives of 5 starving children you have never heard of? YOUR MOM!!

I answered the above three questions for you assuming that you are human, and that you do not follow some higher, rationalized code of ethics. Morals are obtained from society and culture rather than our own instincts. Therefore, when you act upon morals you are not necessarily doing what you really want to do. The less morals you have, the more self-reliant and authentic you are. Don't be made fake by morals!!!! Consider the following:

A weak friend refuses to share his friend's secrets because of his strong sense of morality. A real friend refuses to share his friend's secrets because he cares about his friend.

A weak man stops himself from cheating on his wife with a really sexy woman, because he has morals. A faithful man stops himself from cheating on his wife because he loves her.