Index of articles, click here.
Making sense
By Sam Zanahar
Version 1.3, Phoenix, 22. July 2010
I do not believe that philosophies have to be elaborate systems. Every great truth is simple in nature. This holds for physics and metaphysics.
I have not elected to be alive. At best, I have been unintended; the product of an accident. Or worse, I have been planned, not for my benefit, but to add pleasure to the life of my parents.
If I had had a choice, I would have elected not to be born. I believe that the greatest favor parents can do their children is to abort them in the first few days after they have been conceived. I am of this opinion because it is evident that life, for every living being, brings much more pain and suffering than it does bring pleasure.
If we, as human beings, were fully rational we would hurry to commit suicide a quickly as possible, in as comfortable a manner as possible. Sleeping pills, slit wrists, or a bullet into the head. Whatever is fast, or at least painless.
Alas, we are not rational beings, but slaves of nature. We are not built with an intrinsic ability to opt out. Rather, our instincts determine that we toil along. Even during terminal suffering, we clinch to life, always hoping for another, a better day.
I have a lot of respect for those who commit suicide for rational, philosophical reasons, and even for those who do it in despair (which is much more common).
Great men have committed suicide on a rational basis when they assumed that life no longer had much in store for them. Sigmund Freud, Ernest Hemingway ...
While committing suicide may be the most sensible solution anytime in our lives, the question for those of us who do not have the courage to proceed (like me) is: what else to do with one's life?
I am not into any of the traditional options: I can't find any solace in religion, not even in Buddhism. Though I do have more than 10 children, I do not live to procreate. While my children are the main drain of my finances, and while I am proud of their successes, they are not the essence of my life.
I also am not dedicated to the good of my fellow humans (no political career for me), and I do not live for the sake of art or literature.
Actually, I don't believe that there is anything that truly is worth living for. But those of us who do not have the courage to do what would be right (to commit suicide) find themselves in the quagmire that they have to do something else with their lives.
But what?
This is where we move from questions of philosophy to questions of technology.
If, or as, there is no purpose in life outside of each individual life, pleasure, or the pursuit of happiness, is the only value that remains. When talking about pleasure, I do not mean the kind of shallow consumer entertainment the likes of Walt Disney specialize in. This is not about killing time on a Sunday afternoon. This is about pleasure in its metaphysical dimension.
Among metaphysical pleasures, those sexual clearly rank first. The pursuit of sexual satisfaction is what I consider (for men) the alpha male option of staying alive. It is an option not available for everyone, and even for those for which it is available at least in principle, it is not at all times.
If we are attractive, or young and attractive, or, even better, young, attractive, and rich, and therefore, our sexual market value is high, we can choose, as males, to become playboys, or as females, to live it up with a queue of lovers.
If, as men, we hale from a comparatively rich (read: Western) society but are not rich by the standards of our traditional environment, we can still be alpha males if we move to a Third World country. An alpha male doesn't have to be good. He only has to be considerably better than the local average.
Many global issues have direct bearing on my personal life, and even the framework of my sexual exploits.
Where America is at war, for example.
America is always at war. If there is no Cold War, then they wage war on terrorism. And if America isn't entertained by the war on drugs, they engage in a war on AIDS, or the war against the sexual exploitation of children.
America is hypocritical. This is a direct consequence of being too powerful. America only knows the perspective from above; it does not know how the world looks from below. But if you cannot take a look from below, the perspective necessarily is hypocritical.
Osama bin Laden presented the bill. He is not just popular with Muslim fundamentalists. Muslim fundamentalists are less than 10 percent of those who cheer his actions. His tremendous popularity in the Third World is due primarily to the fact that he confronts what is perceived as the world's superpower of arrogance, the US, which messes with everybody else's affairs.
By and large, we live in a bipolar world. The two poles are the First World and the Third World. There is no such thing as a Second World. Actually, even the term First World has been born out of ignorance. What we started with was the "Old World" (Europe) and the "New World" (the Americas), and all the rest lumped together as the "Third World".
OK, the terms Old World and New World have gone out of fashion. Now we have a First World, which means rich countries with a Western-style political structure, and a Third World, which means poor countries, or countries with a political system that does not match American standards of decency.
Global issues have a direct bearing on my sexual exploits.
But bear in mind that the term "exploits" is not equivalent to "exploitation". Exploitation involves a considerable lack of voluntary action on the part of those who are exploited. Typically, those who are exploited do not have alternatives among which to choose. They may not have the option to get out of the exploitive situation.
Black Africans were exploited as slaves in the Americas. Children are exploited when they are forced to work in sweatshops. Women who are forced into prostitution are exploited.
I pursue sexual exploits but I have no part in the sexual exploitation of women. The girls and women with whom I have sexual relationships (my exploits, so to speak) engage in sexual relationships with me on their own free will, often without the knowledge of their fathers, mothers, older brothers, even husbands. Actually, it usually is implied that fathers, mothers, older brothers, and, of course, husbands would strongly oppose what I and their daughter, sister, or wife, are doing together.
The motive of the woman or girl with whom I engage in sexual acts may not always be sexual lust alone, but a mixture of sexual lust and an act of protest against her elders, or may include commercial considerations (as I can afford to be generous). But the relationship definitely is based on free will on the part of the lady, which is why, from my perspective, it is an exploit (yes, I score points). However, the relationship is not based on exploitation in a sensible interpretation of the term.
We want to be careful not to overstretch the meaning of words because this would lead to a dogmatic, scholastic dead end. Not every interaction between a rich man and a poor girl, or a socially powerful person and a largely powerless one is exploitive per se, even though the interaction is not between equals.
Total equality will never be achievable. It's not even a dream worth pursuing. If anything, it would be a nightmare scenario.
I am better than many other men. I pursue my exploits, which are not based on exploitation. I don't interact with bonded women. I don't need to. There are more than enough who are available on their own free will.
I have two legs. I like to have one in the First World, and one in the Third World. I go for the best of both worlds. It's the most practical thing to do.
The advantages of the First World are obvious. In a rich country, which can afford a social system that aims to provide enough for everyone, it is easy to meet one's economic needs. And not only this. In rich countries with fairly equally distributed wealth, there is a large consumer market on which it is comparatively easy to sell something. Anything.
While there are Third World countries, which, on the face of it, are comparatively rich (like Saudi Arabia), but do not have a political, economic, or social system that would qualify them for the First World, your average Third World country is poor.
In these poor Third World countries, the going is rather tough. These are economies of need. Economic issues overshadow political and cultural issues. This is why poor countries are losing their cultural identity. Whether it's Cairo or Bombay or Mexico City or Jakarta or Lagos: big cities of poor countries everywhere around the world feel the same: chaotic traffic, choking pollution, and a populace where everybody's primary concern is to find some money. More than 95 percent of the people in such places have a hard time to make ends meet. A very hard time, indeed.
Under such circumstances, everything becomes negotiable. Crime is rampant. But not only this.
The borderline between what is criminal and what is just street-smart becomes murky. The willingness to cheat (provided there is little danger of being caught) is widespread even among those who certainly do not consider themselves criminals.
So, what you get is widespread corruption among government officials (and not only among them), and overcharging for all kind of services (if you have a buyer who doesn't know, which may be a newcomer from the countryside, or a foreign tourist, or whoever.)
There is also much less social and police control in poor Third World cities than in cities of the First World. To effectively police a city of 5 million, you'd need a force of some 200,000, and this force would have to be adequately equipped, motivated, and controlled.
You won't find this in a poor Third World metropolis. Even if the members of the so-called law enforcement agencies are sufficient in numbers, you'll have a far too high level of susceptibility to corruption to be effective. And a good proportion of the funds made available to the police to protect the public good will end up benefiting only a selected few, either within or without the police force itself.
It's of course great to be rich in a poor country. While in a modern First World country, a rich person may have one hundred times the net worth of the average member of society, that's nothing in a poor Third World society. In a poor Third World society, the average net worth may be something like 100 US dollars. But you do have people there who can spend 200,000 US dollars on their Mercedes car alone.
In a poor Third World city, which typically also is poorly policed, morals and traditional restrictions on a person's behavior are bound to gradually become lost. What counts is the economic bottom line. And this means, among other aspects of life, that female partner choice is much more guided by economic consideration than it would be the case in a rich First World society.
In a rich First World society, it would be seen as proof of a poor character if the partner choice of a young attractive woman were primarily determined by how rich a man is. Young attractive women in a rich First World society may still fall for the Ferrari guy. But they won't admit, not even to themselves, that they are drawn primarily by a man's wealth.
No such scruples in a poor Third World city. In poor Third World cities, girls who choose a man for his attractive appearance, or his charm, or even his education, are considered stupid.
The most important aspect is: does he have the means?
The means, not just to support a family or household; but also, the means to buy presents and financial support during a temporary relationship.
While all of the above considerations may have sounded rather theoretical, they are of immediate practical importance for me and for those who follow the Serge Kreutz lifestyle advice.
If your aim is, for philosophical reasons, to maximize your sexual experience (because this is the only purpose worth living for), then you ought to take advantage of the world as it presents itself to us.
In rich First World countries, you will clearly face problems maximizing your sexual adventures. Of course, you can engage in a single long-term sexual relationship with a single partner. This is an option open to virtually every member of a First World country. That every man should have one woman also matches the idea of equal and just allocation of resources, which is an ideological pillar of Western social democracies.
And it is in accordance with the romantic ideas of a good world; ideas, which are derived from the works of traditional European philosophies.
But most of these philosophies are esoteric nonsense, and we do not live in a good, an altruistic world. We live in a biological world where Darwin's laws rule supreme; the rules of the survival of the fittest, of evolution and natural selection, and of male competition and female selection.
And we live in a political world where Machiavelli rules. Is it a sexual world by De Sade's design?
Anyway, it is a smart decision to pursue sexual adventures in Third World countries. And I do not mean: sexual adventures in the world of prostitution, though prostitution is, of course, rampant in the Third World.
I am not against prostitutes. I understand that, whether in the First World or the Third World, prostitutes can earn in a day what the average woman earns in a month. It's great to earn a lot of money. One can buy a car and build a nice house.
I understand that most customers of prostitutes are older men, most (of course) married, with family. I sometimes sleep with older women who are married and / or have had children. It's a great experience.
If I were to judge what I prefer, to sleep with an older woman (even if she isn't particularly attractive), or to do typical nursing jobs for her (such as washing her after she soiled herself), I prefer the sexual contact. I don't like wiping peoples' asses. Shit stinks, and is very unaesthetic indeed.
Wiping asses is also poorly paid.
Just like collecting garbage.
No wonder many First World countries very officially import nurses and garbage collectors from Third World countries.
Prostitutes are often imported illegally.
I am a man. I have never been a woman. I don't know how women feel when they sleep with many men. I sleep with many women. From a sexual perspective, this is great. From a hygienic perspective, it has its risks, but during the last decade, I haven't had a venereal disease. Obviously I take precautions.
I know many women who have slept with many men, and I assume they liked it. I don't know about prostitutes. I don't use prostitutes. I don't have to. Enough other women are available to me. Actually, more than I can tackle.
I think prostitutes provide an inferior service, which, apart from this, is totally overpriced.
I prefer woman and girls, who sleep with me because they are in love with me, or would like to try me out, or would like to be married to me. Whatever of the three, sex certainly is better than with prostitutes; it's also cheaper, and more hygienic (especially if they want me, and no other men).
But I am not against prostitutes. I grant them their income, as I assume that their customers voluntarily pay the demanded price.
I am totally against violent crime. I believe that both First World and Third World societies are far too lenient with those organized dregs who abduct women, sell them into prostitution, or keep them locked up and force them to serve clients. Not clients they would have freely chosen themselves, but their slavers' clients.
Yes, I am in favor of capital punishment for violent crime. But I would like it make it clear that violent crime, per definition, is a form of crime that includes a certain degree of violence. I do want to point this out because it is the trend in many countries to define certain acts as statutory violent crime.
In some countries, if a 19-year-old man has a genuine love affair with a 17-year-old girl, and this is brought to the attention of the police or the courts, than he is prosecuted for statutory rape, even if the two didn't even have penetrative sex.
This is rape only by name (thus statutory), but not in essence.
The invention of statutory sexual crime more often than not is the work of Western feminazis and their male associates, and regularly has the features of anti-male revenge.
Some men just hate women. And some women just hate men.
Men who hate women will have a hard time to find a modern forum or organization where they can translate their hate into activism.
Women don't have that kind of a problem. There are numerous organizations on every level of (Western) society, all openly dedicated to fight male chauvinism.
And some of these rather openly anti-male groups have made it their agenda to hunt down Western men who are after sexual exploits in Third World countries.
It has been claimed that I am in favor of sex tourism to Third World countries.
Such crap!
I am fully against sex tourism to Third World countries. It is totally against my interests.
Not only am I against sex tourism to Third World countries. Actually, I am against all forms of tourism to Third World countries. It only brings me disadvantages. I like these countries for myself, not for others.
By and large, tourists who visit Third World countries are the civilian branch of the imperialistic US Armed Forces.
I am a multi-culture man. I am in favor of the diversity of world cultures. I don't want to eat the same soup every day. I am bored with Old-World culture and New-World hypocrisy. I would love to visit the South Sea as it presented itself to Captain Cook. Or Thailand when it was ruled by King Chulalongkorn. Or Baghdad when it was part of the Ottoman Empire.
I am an elitist. Even now, Third World countries are all the better for me the fewer Western tourists visit them. Mass sex tourism, as we had it from the 1970s, first in Thailand and then in the Philippines, messes it all up.
In both countries, as well as in Cambodia, the typical sequence of developments goes like this: First sex tourism, then local resentment, then the involvement of Western anti-sexual exploitation groups and general anti-sex lobbies (such as the Catholic Church), and then legislation that is primarily directed against sexual relationships between Western men and local women.
I am an elitist. I am in favor of sexual relationships in Third World countries. For me. Not for others. What kind of a fool would I be to promote sex in the Third World for other men who will only turn up to be my competitors?
I am also a materialist. Not in the sense that I would strive to amass material wealth. I am a materialist in the philosophical sense, as it has been used by Marx to differentiate himself from Hegel's idealism.
Materialism, in Marx' definition, means that the Sein determines the Bewusstsein, or that our, mostly material, but also political, interests shape our opinions, or ideologies.
On this basis, it is obvious that I must be vehemently against sex tourism, or any form of tourism, to Third World countries.
I know who is in favor of tourism to Third World countries. Airlines who want to fill the seats of long-haul flights. People who invest into hotels and resorts in Kingston and Kinshasa. The publishers of guidebooks to far flung places.
The Yemen and Tibet were once lonely places. Now they are visited by considerable numbers of Westerners who bring an essential tool to find their way around without being overcharged: their Lonely Planet guidebook.
I am very much against the widespread messing of the US in world political and social affairs. It doesn't benefit the American people. It costs a lot of taxpayers' money, and creates financial returns only for a few wealthy American individuals who then get even richer.
These wealthy individuals are hidden behind the typical American business facade, the corporation. But corporations, so-called juristic persons, are not alive, and therefore do not have interests. They are just an instrument so that those who own them can evade liabilities, and can remain largely anonymous, enjoying their growing wealth in a stress-free environment.
For the ordinary American, there is no benefit from the US' messing in other countries political and social affairs. Plain international trade is OK. Of course, the messing starts when traders want to maximize their profits by changing political and social conditions in other countries. Such changes in political and social conditions of other countries may indeed be reflected on corporate earning sheets as higher dividends for their owners.
But that's not the full story. There are related costs which will not show on corporate balance sheets, as corporations won't cover them, and instead roll them over to the American government and tax-paying public.
Anti Americanism is the natural consequence of bullying the people of other countries. And some of those constantly bullied will become terrorists. And the expenses for American homeland security won't be paid by those people, who, in hiding behind corporate facades, reap additional profits from the messing in political and social affairs of other countries (mostly in the Third World).
I am against US meddling on the level that is now common in many Third World countries. It doesn't benefit the American public, and it is a disturbance for me.
But I am flexible, and if conditions get bad in one country, I can still go somewhere else. I am neither a terrorist, nor a supporter of terrorism. I will never become a suicide bomber in order to effect changes in a world in which I myself will no longer be around.
I only have a few more years, but if I will commit suicide, it will be for my own comfort, not an esoteric purpose such as a religion, or a nation, or so that my children will live in a better world.
Like everybody else who flies, or regularly has family members on board of planes, I am against international civil aviation becoming a battleground for the containment of the ambitions of US corporate owners.
I am also against attacks against so-called soft Western targets in Third World countries, as I am one myself.
That said, I would like to proceed to apply some dialectical logics.
The more Westerners visit a certain Third World country, the uglier the West's image will likely become. The uglier the West's image, the more likely it is that radical anti-Western sentiments will grow. The more widespread anti Western sentiments, the more likely we will encounter individuals who will use means of terrorism to oppose Western influence. Terrorist acts, more than anything else, work to drive Westerners out of the country. With fewer
Odd as it may sound, and even though I am a potential target, I do realize that terrorists play into my hands. I have lived in Third World countries for more than 20 years. I have experienced Westerners becoming gradually less welcome in the Philippines or Cambodia the more of them arrived.
For my purposes, there is an ideal level of how many Westerners should be present in a Third World city. Enough Westerners so that the sight of me will not attract hordes of children following me wherever I go because they so seldom see a Western man. But not enough Westerners to ignite anti-Western sentiments. Mass sex tourism as it existed, or exists, in Thailand, the Philippines, and Cambodia, is totally against my interests. So is any other form of mass tourism.
Events that cup the number of Western tourists coming to the country where I live, or events that depress Western tourism overall, are in my interest, be it SARS, or the bird flu, or plane crashes, or hotel bombings.
There are more twists. Each plane crash, be it for a mechanical failure or a terrorist attack, actually makes aviation safer, as it functions as a wake-up call to weaknesses or security loopholes.
However, I do want to, and have to, point out that my realizing that plane crashes and terrorism play into my hands does not mean that I would have a hand in such events and acts. I am, entirely, a silent beneficiary.
Sometimes I am up, sometimes I am down. Whether I am up or whether I am down really only depends on one thing: whether I score or not.
Scoring means: landing a girl in bed, underneath my 85-kg frame.
I score 10 if she is a young first-time experience; when, upon starting out, I am unsure whether she will go the full distance, and then she does; when I have intercourse for 20 to 30 minutes, and for the whole length of time have just one thought traveling in circles through my mind: it's sooo good to be alive; life is sooo wonderful!
I am up, and she is down. She can wind herself in a combination of pleasure and pain, yes, pain, because I am massively inside her. For me, it is the ultimate purpose for being alive.
I score 10. Business can be lousy, my wealth on the decline, but when I score 10, life is great, even if all else is shit.
I can't score 10 every day. OK, if I score 9, or 8, or 7, it's still fine. After a 10, and a 9 the next day, and a 7 on the third day, my mood is still positive.
A 7 would be a girl I have already met once or twice before. Still fresh, but already known to me... in the way of carnal knowledge, this is.
Aaah, carnal knowledge... what a beautiful verbal creation. How sweet can knowledge be if it is carnal. If knowledge comes from studying hard, and if knowledge is carnal, than I will pass my life as an eternal student. You can never know enough (carnal).
If I score two 10s a week, and a 9, an 8, and a 7, then I can bear with the odd single score of 2 or 3 that is bound to occur every now and then. I can even go with no score once a week, though I will be in a bad mood that day, and not sleep well the following night.
But if I don't score for a few days in a row, or if the scores on a few consecutive days are just 2s or 3s, than I start questioning whether I'm at the right place.
2s or 3s can happen because I face problems of supply. The girls I meet have already been with me for a few times, or they are girls who have sex routinely, and not just with me, or, even worse, I land a girl with whom I have hygienic worries.
Low scores can also happen because I have reached an out-of-form stage. Lack of libido, erectile shortcomings, or orgasms that don't explode properly.
When my scores are low, or when I don't score at all because of serious supply bottlenecks, than I am alarmed.
I completely lack in humbleness. I am a modern-day stealth sultan. I need a steady supply of fresh playmates, or I am feeling depressed. For the average man, I suggest a late marriage and just one wife per lifetime Let's say: one of the girls I deflowered and no longer have any interest in.
I am a stealth sultan. In large Third World cities, you can have it all, and nobody knows apart from you.
Of course, you have to get the logistics right. You will need more than one house or flat. You should own a car, standard make, with tinted-glass windows (the mirror kind), and you need a good "working knowledge" of the local language.
I have had periods in my life where my average weekly score has been above 40 for months on end. An average of two first timers a week, plus the repeats.
I rightly feel the envy of other men. I'm a top scorer, an alpha male. And I'm of retirement age. Retire? I will never retire.
When my scores drop to a series of 2s or 3s, or when I don't score for a few days, my mind is occupied with just one question: how to re-establish my average weekly score of 40.
I'll go any length. Settle in another Third World country, learn yet another language.
I live for nothing else. I live for one purpose only. A lifelong journey of sexual adventures.
I understand that morals play an important role in human society. And I further understand that the single biggest source for morals is religions.
I am very much in favor of morals and religion.
For others.
I believe that Kant is the single biggest fallacy in European philosophical history. Not only did he write a terribly unentertaining style (I am German and read his work in its original language). His very basic assumptions also are pure nonsense... and that's the worst that I can say in an essay that is headlined "Making sense".
Why on earth should we, as Kant did, assume that we should morally apply to all what we want applied to us ourselves (the so called categorical imperative).
I want success for me, and for others I want failure. When others go down, and I just stay the same, then, automatically, I am up.
Kant is nonsense. So, am I a proletarian Nietzsche? I am not as noble as Nietzsche. I don't care for lofty ideals, even if they are non-religious. I don't aim to become an Uebermensch. I have good reason to view myself as an animal. Biological science perfectly covers this perception. So, I am an Untermensch. A Nietzsche for the lumpen?
Who else Karl Marx He came up with a beautiful concept for the origin of our morals They are based on our interests. Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein. Our philosophies are the rationalization of our interests. Which is why they are ideologies.
I am 100 percent a Marxist, and 0 percent a Communist. And I wonder how a man with so much philosophical insight could come up with a political theory so totally off the mark.
So I am in favor of morals and religions?
I myself am totally non-religious. No gods, not a single God. No afterlife and no Nirvana. No miracles, no karma. No judgment day.
Not for me.
But it's good if others have morals and religions.
As Marx and Engels correctly analyzed: religions are opium for the masses. How wonderfully cheap to tranquilize the oppressed. How beautifully effective. And the religion named "opium" doesn't undermine productivity either.
Sexual restrictions are an important element of morals and religions. Throughout history, sexual restrictions have been a successful meme, and rightly so.
Free sex for all spells death of a society. For lack of hygiene. I prefer girls and women who have a minimal number of sexual partners. While I do occasionally enjoy the horniness of women who, for this reason, have been seduced by other men, the ideal setting for me is that the majority of women I enjoy have no other man than me.
No gonorrhea. No syphilis. No chlamydia. No AIDS. No condoms.