[Prakash RP]

 ' Prakash RP wrote:" By my view of humanity, I don't think humanity is so mean and ungrateful as to deny to me my due recognition and respect for the great service I've done humanity by presenting it with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, a humble piece of writing by this humble guy, which is meant to acquaint humanity with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and its significance and thus awaken it to the fact that it becomes humanity, the being superior to all other beings, and it makes sense too, to live a healthy and meaningful life.(…) As I see it, communism will produce new, enlightened, better-quality humanity than its present-day variety, and I'm certain that the new haminity of the future will have the calibre and capability to rise above all sorts of meanness and recognise Prakash RP as the originator of  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living that happens to be meant for both varieties of humanity, i.e. all those that are products of capitalism and all those humans communism will produce. "Oh dear. This is really sad. Now you want a statue erected to you in socialism/communism. '  [ comment by ALB on 19/04/2017 ]  It's not clear to me what it is truly that makes you ' really sad '. If it's my view of humanity which you're afraid may prove true, and if you wish to be left out of the humanity that's, by my view, NOT '  so mean and ungrateful as to deny to me my due recognition and respect ' , I don't think I've got any good reason to refuse to oblige you. You may rest assured that NOBODY will disturb you or cause your displeasure in this matter. Nevertheless, you seem to have exhausted your faculty of reasoning and wits. Do you have any more arguments for your position in this debate ? If you think I've overlooked or failed to deal with any important points raised by you, I'd like you to accept my apology for this lapse and bring the matter to my notice.

[Prakash RP]

 ' Prakash RP wrote:" [ * The Communist Manifesto ] " Just as an aside. You mention this but neither of its authors adhered to the whole of your "healthy living" principles. Both Marx and Engels drunk alcohol and smoked tobacco. Marx was legally married. Engels was better on this last matter but he went in for fox-hunting. Where they Communists? Or just bad Communists? ' [ comment by ALB on 17/04/2017 ] First up, I'd like to say that I think you deserve a pat on the back for NOT beating a retreat yet from this debate, and that I wish you wouldn't retreat before seeing it through to prove that you're NOT lacking, like a true communist, in the backbone you need have in order to face up, with your head held erect, to the truth, the brute and naked truth, the truth that is invincible and inescapable.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  As regards the point you've raised in the ' aside ' cited above, I'd like to say that I'm glad that you've raised this point and thus given me an opportunity to throw light on it. As I view it, it's something plain silly. The expression ' an aside ' you've used to describe your own comment suggests that you may NOT be unaware that it does NOT carry much weight. In order to see its silliness, you need NOT wrack your brain hard. Just a little thinking over the following question ought to make it clear as day.  The question at issue is : What is it a true communist ought in your view to be concerned with― mistakes Marx and Engels made or their intellectual achievements, brilliant discoveries by them, meant to guide communists ?  NO humans are infallible or perfect. This wise observation holds equally true for both great figures like Marx, Engels, Einstein, etc and humble ones including this guy. The great man of science Albert Einstein also made mistakes. One of his famous mistakes was the well-known ' cosmological constant ' that he himself described as ' the biggest blunder ' of his life. He also believed in the metaphysician Spinoza's God. Neither ' the biggest blunder ' by Einstein nor his silly belief in Spinoza's God is science or something that humanity benefitted by, RIGHT ? As the sensible know, it's the theory of relativity, the equation  E = mc2 , the concept of black holes, etc that empowered humanity and contributed to the progress of human civilisation worldwide. Marx and Engels passed away long before we saw the light of day. Were they alive today, we could've asked them to clarify what they view as the true communist stance on the  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. That's not possible in the 21st century. Nevertheless, as we all know today, humanity in the 19th century did NOT really know as much as we do today about drugs, drinks, smoking, etc and their potentialities to cause harm. I think communists ought NOT to fail to take cognisance of this very fact. Communists ought NOT to fail either to take cognisance of the fact that the theory of communism is science and the fact that the communistic outlook is scientific. Thus, from my point of view, the contradiction between the communist outlook and dogmatism is irreconcilable. Communists must study hard, watch phenomena with the keen sight of a scientist, and wrack their brain to find right answers to the unanswered and explain the unexplained. The point is there exists NO conflict between the communist ideology and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. The point is there's NO good reason why communists should NOT uphold the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. The point is the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living is meant to transform humanity into a better one and thus transform the world into a better place. The point is there's NOTHING unrealistic NOR anything disagreeable in the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. And above all, the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living has got NO matching rival, and hence there's NO substitute for it, OK ?

[Prakash RP]

 '  Prakash RP wrote:" I also know there's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest there exists any conflict between communism and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. "There isn't really (unless you want to impose them on people). Most of them will be irrelevant in socialism/communism anyway (there'll be no legal "matrimony", women won't be economically dependent on men, no stealing, smuggling, trafficking in women and drugs, gambling, receiving bribes, tax evasion, hoarding black money, etc, etc.). But if you want to live by them, go ahead. Others may well choose a different lifestyle which includes some of things you don't like such as drinking and smoking. That wouldn't be in conflict with socialism/communism either. ' [ comment by ALB on 16/04/2017 ]   It's obvious that ALB does NOT disagree with me over the point that '  there's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest there exists any conflict between communism and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. ' Still, he refuses steadfastly to stand for the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living because, as I see it, he's unwilling, and unable too, like a drug addict unable to give up taking drugs, to get rid of his addiction to stuff like matrimony, etc. A possible reason for this attitude of his seems to be the fact that he's afraid he won't be able to indulge in the luxury of such stuff as drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc in the communist order. He also seems to be unwilling to draw any lesson from the infantile hypocrisy and mistakes of pseudo-communists like Lenin, Mao, and their silly followers. I wish it came home to him and all those behind him that hypocrisy is outright unlikely to prove paying, and that such things are unbecoming of an enlightened human, hence a true communist who must be enlightened and sensible. Why should a human who's NOT a true communist, and who does NOT have a shred of respect for the communist values and ethics, make-believe, unless it's something of the sort of unhealthy pleasure, something those addicted to drugs and drinks derive from such stuff, which they mean to derive from such behaviour, that they're communist, I wonder.  ' Most of them will be irrelevant in socialism/communism anyway (there'll be … ). '  This observation by ALB reflects his attitude towards the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. It's clear as day that ALB views most of what the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living contains as ' irrelevant in socialism/communism ', and so he believes, it's implicit in his comment, that  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living does NOT deserve to be considered something that matters much. As I view it, he's mistaken outright about it as well. By my view of humanity, I don't think humanity is so mean and ungrateful as to deny to me my due recognition and respect for the great service I've done humanity by presenting it with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, a humble piece of writing by this humble guy, which is meant to acquaint humanity with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and its significance and thus awaken it to the fact that it becomes humanity, the being superior to all other beings, and it makes sense too, to live a healthy and meaningful life. So far as its relevancy is concerned, I believe  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living would remain relevant, like the materialistic conception of history, after switching over to communism because not only does it happen to be the pioneering work meant to enlighten humanity about  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and its significance, it also happens to be the first work meant to communicate to humanity the message that it's unbecoming of humanity to lead a meaningless existence as beasts do ( i.e. to be born to eat, sleep, relish sex, procreate, fight for survival, and succumb to injuries received during fighting or some disease or old age ). As I see it, communism will produce new, enlightened, better-quality humanity than its present-day variety, and I'm certain that the new haminity of the future will have the calibre and capability to rise above all sorts of meanness and recognise Prakash RP as the originator of  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living that happens to be meant for both varieties of humanity, i.e. all those that are products of capitalism and all those humans communism will produce.  ' … you want to impose them [ the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living ]  on people '   As a communist, I believe a true communist ought to regard it as their mission in life to seek after the truth and enlighten humanity by sharing with all the truth they've discovered. The PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living is the fruit of my effort to accomplish this mandatory mission. It's more than obvious that in ALB's view, what I view as the mandatory mission of every true communist of today happens to be an effort meant ' to impose them [ the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living ]  on people '. May I ask him what he views as mandatory missions in life of a true communist or whether he at all believes there exists any such a thing as a mandatory mission a communist must accomplish other than indulgence in silly luxuries like drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc. ? ' Others may well choose a different lifestyle which includes some of things you don't like such as drinking and smoking. '  Anyone is free to choose any silly lifestyle and indulge in any silly luxuries. But sir, such acts do NOT become a true communist who's endowed with the backbone they need have in order to overcome the allure of such a silly lifestyle and such silly luxuries.  ' That wouldn't be in conflict with socialism/communism either. '  That should ' be in conflict with socialism/communism ' because communism is fundamentally opposed to matrimony, and because communism canNOT be in favour of  the PRINCIPLE of unhealthy and meaningless living. 

[Prakash RP]

 I'd like to rectify an error in my message dated 15/04/2017. The comment ' Why do you exaggerate all the time and draw invalid analogies? … ' by ALB was made on 29/03/2017, not on 28/03/2017. I regret this unintentional error. Nevertheless, I'd like to add the following points to this comment.  There's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest that communism is for or against the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. There's NOTHING in the theory of communism either to suggest that communism is for or against drugs, drinks, smoking, or any other stuff meant for the gratification of your addiction to it.There's NOTHING in the theory of communism either to suggest that communism is for or against stealing, smuggling, receiving bribes, hoarding black money, trafficking in dames and drugs, rape, gang rape, etc, etc, i.e. all sorts of criminal activities. You're free to choose to make the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living your life principle or REJECT it outright. If you choose to REJECT the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, you're free to indulge in smoking, drinking, taking drugs, receiving bribes, gambling, matrimony or sheer travesties in the name of matrimony, and any other activities that happen to be in direct and outright conflict with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, and still you may profess to be a communist.Nevertheless, if you choose the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and make it your life principle, and if you're true to your principle, you canNOT indulge in luxuries like matrimony or a travesty of it or any other acts that fails to harmonise with this Principle.Communism is NOT just any ideology and outlook.NOR does the communist party happen to be just any political party. If communism is to prove NOT-just-any ideology, it has to stand for the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and make it a must for all communist without exception. Mind you, capitalism, the exploitation of man by man, the commodity economy, the social division into classes, money, matrimony, economic inequality, etc, etc do  NOT fit in with the  PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. Because communism is ' the most radical rupture with traditional ideas '*, it must stand for the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. The main limitation of the argument that the organisation of the communist revolution, because it is a great big project the success of which calls for the active involvement of the majority of the proletariat, demands that the membership of the communist party ought NOT to be restricted to true communists alone ( i.e. only those that are free of addiction to drugs, drinks, matrimony, et cetera, i.e. the stuff that does NOT fit in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living ) is that by the same argument, you have to grant the membership at issue not only to all those that are NOT true communists but to drug addicts, drug peddlers, gamblers, smugglers, robbers, terrorists ( such as Maoists in India's jungles ), rapists, gang rapists, etc, etc, i.e. all those engaged in illicit trades and activities as well.There's NO good reason to believe that people addicted to drugs, drinks, matrimonjy, etc, the antisocial, and criminals will organise the communist REVOLUTION.[ * The Communist Manifesto ] 

[Prakash RP]

In response to ' Reminder: 6 ' , I'd like to state the following.I haven't knowingly posted the same thing repeatedly. Nevertheless, some points in some posts may be similar or identical. But they have been stated with a view to either proving my position or making it stronger. I think in a debate, I am permitted to do it in the interest of debate. I can restate a point if someone misses it or fail to appreciate its proper weight, can't I ?If you find any of my posts exceptionable, please refer to it specifically. I must rectify my mistakes.   

[Prakash RP]

 ' Drinking, smoking, gambling and being married are not the same as being "addicted" to them. In fact I'm not sure what an "addition to matrimony" might be. ' [ comment by ALB on 25/03/2017 ] ' The issue is not whether or not there could be a notional list of things that Socialists should or should not do, but what should be on any such list. Socialists should not be race prejudiced, anti-gay, religious, etc, as your list proposes, and obviously (it's absurd to suggest they might not be) against "raping, gang raping, trafficking, killing people". The question is should the list include such matters as smoking, drinking, gambling, getting married (or spending all your money on promoting socialism). ' [ comment by ALB on 28/03/2017 ] ' Why do you exaggerate all the time and draw invalid analogies? To say drinking is ok is not to condone "squandering" money on it. And "taking bribes" (and some other things you've mentioned such as rape) are not in the same category as drinking. Of course it is not a wise course of action for a socialist or any other worker for that matter to squander their money on drinking, gambling or drug-taking. '  [ comment by ALB on 28/03/2017 ] The distinction between a shark and a piranha are too distinct to escape even a child's notice. Still, I think even children won't make the mistake, if they're asked to name a single category for both sorts of the creatures, of failing to choose the category of fierce flesh-eating fish. There's NO good reason for failing to see the fact that both of a malignant brain tumour and an AIDS virus are almost equally deadly for a human being, and so they rightly belong to the category of deadly stuff. There's NO good reason either why an enlightened human should fail to see the fact that matrimony, smoking, drinking, gambling, gang-raping, drug taking, etc each are basically bad and the fact that NONE of them fit in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. I also fail to see any good reason to justify the failure of an enlightened human who can clearly see why socialists ' should not be race prejudiced, anti-gay, religious, etc, ' to see why socialists should NOT be pro-matrimony ( or pro the travesty of matrimony ), pro-drinking, pro-smoking, pro-gambling, etc. I really find it hard going why socialists should consider it ' absurd to suggest they might not be ' opposed to ' " raping, gang raping, trafficking … " '. I should like to know what in the theory of communism suggests that communists ' should not be race prejudiced, anti-gay, ' pro rape, pro gang rape, etc, or that they ought NOT to engage in stealing, smuggling, trafficking in dames and drugs, gambling, taking drugs, receiving bribes, tax evasion, hoarding black money, etc, etc. Nevertheless, I know there exists abundance of material in the theory of communism and works of Marx and Engels to show that communism is fundamentally opposed to the institution of matrimony, and that communism approves of girls' freedom to engage in and relish any and any number of liaisons with boyfriends of their choice. I also know there's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest there exists any conflict between communism and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. The ' invalid analogies ' were meant to throw light on the silliness of comments in reponse to which they were drawn, and so they may NOT be ' invalid ', I'm afraid to say. To say drinking [ or the luxury of matrimony ] is ok ' should mean ' to condone " squandering " money on it ' if we do NOT fail to take cognisance of the average earnings of the 99 per cent whose total possessions hardly match up to the total possessions of the 1 per cent.The way the vulgar millions indulge in what truly happens to be travesties of matrimony, knowing it well that the poor truly have got NOTHING truly meaningful to derive from such stuff that in essence happens to be  rich men's luxury unbecoming of the poor gives me the impression that those fools are addicted to it like a drug addict that is unable to stop taking drugs.

[Prakash RP]

' I don't think Prakhash bans squandering money on pets, does he? ' [ ALB's comment on 06/04/2017 ]I admit to this limitation of my view, and I admire you for not allowing it to escape your notice.

[Prakash RP]

' Did some girl hurt you? ' [ comment by Kilgallon on April 07, 2017 ]Would like to know what led you to the thought that I may have been hurt by some girl before I had posted this message.  

[Prakash RP]

 '  But I don't see why a person who wants a classless, stateless, moneyless, communist (socialist) society has to forego smoking and alcohol:Quote:The PHML requires you to lead a healthy, both physically and mentally, and meaningful life. In order to remain healthy and strong, you have to avoid all unwholesome food and stuff like alcohol, tobacco products, narcotics and all such things that lead to addiction or morbidityThat strikes me as a personal choice which a political party can't require of its members (we have vegetarian members but that's up to them. The rest of us eat meat). Same goes for "matrimony". Of course it's a private property institution but should members be expelled if they get married? Should we refuse to admit new members who are married? I don't think so. ' [ comment by ALB on  23/03/2017  ] I've already replied to the comment by ALB quoted above on 25 March, 26 March, and 27 March 2017.I'd like to add a few words more to my earlier comments. As a communist, you  must work hard to accomplish your mission in life, i.e. the organisatio0n of the communist REVOLUTION. You have to make a significant contribution to the communist cause. A true communist party have also got the same mission. However, the organisation of the communist revolution happens to be a great big task, the accomplishment of which calls for the active participation of the multitude, the born-poor-and-deprived millions. But the silly millions, the hard-working, exploited multitude, who have yet to awake to the disgusting fact that they were born poor to work hard and lead an existence befitting beasts of burden, and thus they were born victims of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE, and who find NOTHING wrong with and do NOT feel they ought to feel ashamed of the fact that notwithstanding it's them that produce all wealth and luxuries, they lead a bestial existence themselves throughout their life while a few idlers, the born-rich 1 per cent and the born-super-rich 80 guys, lead a life of fabulous riches and luxuries before their silly eyes won't organise the communist REVOLUTION just because they are NOT revolutionary people. A prerequisite of a REVOLUTION is the existence of a REVOLUTIONARY class. And the prerequisite of the communist REVOLUTION happens to be the existence of the class of the  REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT. The proletariat comprised of the silly millions described above are NOT revolutionary. Nowhere in the present-day world the  REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT is visible. The silly, benighted millions canNOT form the   REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT. They can make Marxist-Leninists, Maoist terrorists, etc, but NOT the communist   REVOLUTIONARY. They have to be enlightened before they turn    REVOLUTIONARY. The question is, who are to enlighten those benighted fools ? As I see it, it's the mission in life of every communist and the mission of every communist party to provide the silly, benighted, vulgar millions with due enlightenment and thus make them turn REVOLUTIONARY. Am I RIGHT on this point ? In order to enlighten the benighted millions, you have to explain to them what communism means, what it is meant for, the significance and true nature of the institution of private property, the meaning of commodity, the fact that the capitalist mode of production is essentially the production and exchange of commodities, the fact that working for wages is in essence wage slavery, the fundamental law of the commodity economy, the political economy of inequality, et cetera, et cetera, so many issues and points as well as what matrimony means, its true nature, its class character, its anti-feminine characteristic, what truly meaningful it has got to give the proletariat, the true communist attitude to matrimony and a travesty of matrimony, et cetera, et cetera. A true communist and communist party canNOT evade any questions or points relating to private property or matrimony or any other institution of interest. You have to enlighten them about the fact that communism is fundamentally opposed to matrimony and the fact that there exists an irreconcilable contradiction between a guy's matrimonial mission and his communist mission. You have also to enlighten them about the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and the fact that matrimony and private property like the commodity economy, the division of society into classes, et cetera, as well as gambling, drinking, smoking, et cetera do NOT fit in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. You canNOT approve of a communist's luxury of marriage and justify it by the argument, pretending to be unaware of its silliness, that it happens to be ' a personal choice ' whether to get married or stay single just as whether to choose a veggie dish or a non-veggie dish is viewed as ' a personal choice ' that admits of NO interference by the communist party in such matters. The point that ought NOT to have been missed is the fact that both a veggie dish and a non-veggie dish constitute healthy meals, something not only indispensable for living but in full harmony with both the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and the communist PRINCIPLES while not only matrimony happens to be a luxury, something dispensable outright, and something in total, direct, and irreconcilable contradiction to not only communism but the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living as well, it's also an unhealthy, harmful, and nasty luxury and belongs to the same category as smoking, drinking, gambling, addiction to drugs, et cetera do. Matrimony has got NO merits like drugs, drinks, smoking, gambling, et cetera. I've already dealt with and shown the hollowness of the silly argument that socialism and ethics being different things, there exists NOTHING like socialist ethics. The fallacy of such a line of reasoning becomes clear as day if we take cognisance of absurd conclusions we're led to by it, e.g.  there exist NOTHING like medical ethics ( because medicine and ethics are different things ), the blue sky ( because blueness and sky are different things ), a dark night ( as darkness is altogether different from what we call night ), a black hole ( as blackness and a hole are not the same thing ), a rainy day, a red rose, a policeman, a woman doctor ( as womanhood is not the same thing as what the term ' doctor ' means ), a story book, reading glasses, a ceiling fan, a motor car, a ball-point pen, mango juice, a beauty queen, a glamour girl, a wild animal, a domestic cow, clean air, soft drinks, et cetera, et cetera. The fallacy of such arguments consists in the fact that the conclusion ( i.e. there can't exist any such thing as a soft drink ) does NOT follow from the premise ( i.e. the fact that softness and drinks are different things ). 

[Prakash RP]

 I feel I should give my cordial thanks to all of you who have taken part in this debate. A humble seeker after the truth, I count it a great honour that my post ( the first one by me on this website ) has received over 150 responses so far.

[Prakash RP]

ALB wrote:  mcolome1 wrote:Moral issues of the  Churches and priests  of the left. That isn't newActually, it's quite good on religion, giving them all any equal kicking:Quote: The PHML disapproves of all cultures, beliefs, faiths, and practices that do not rest on sound logic or facts .Thus, belief in God, gods, or ghosts, belief in religion and religious rites and rituals, idolatry, palmistry, astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, ayurved, alternative medicine, and other similar stuff which each are just a load of rubbish, from the perspective of an enlightened human, are in conflict with the PHML.The concept of an omnipotent God is just a piece of the silly and benighted. The enlightened know it's the truth, not God, that happens to be all-mighty. And the main drawback of the idea of God the Creator is the fact that nothing but nothingness can emerge out of nothingness. Sir Isaac Newton also believed in God the Creator, but he forgot outright to throw light on how God created the great big universe with billions of stars, planets, moons, meteors, comets, black holes, pulsars, quasars, nebulae, et cetera, et cetera out of the infinite vacuum. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein who discoveredE= mc2 outright dismissed the Newtonian God the Creator. According to Einstein, the universe cannot have a ' Creator ' because it was never created— the universe, as Einstein believed, existed all along and will exist for all eternity ; it is without beginning or end, and hence cannot have a ' Creator ' or a Destroyer. The god aswell as the ghost is also, as the enlightened view it, the fruit of a flight of fancy befitting the silly and benighted.' Faith is stronger than reason, ' says the silly. But the enlightened know the faith is little more than a set of unscientific, ridiculous ideas and beliefs. Faith isn't enlightening ; nor does it have an answer to any problems relating to life or the universe, be it the accumulation of wealth at one pole leading to the pauperism of billions at the other or the phenomenon of global warming or the social pollution due to the barbarian institution of matrimony ( the poor and vulgar marry and procreate just to swell the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial and terrorists, and thus they pollute the society ).Christianity preaches universal love and forgiveness, which means Christianity wants you to love and forgive both the good and the bad, i.e. all the innocent along with the culprits such as thieves, robbers, murderers, smugglers, abductors, gangsters, druc peddlers, girls traffickers, child abusers, Mafiosi, extortionists, rapists, terrorists that pumped shot into Malala, the ISIS gunmen that committed the Paris massacre, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, it ought to be obvious to every sensible human now that the Christian faith is truly the path that is certain to lead the human civilisation to extinction.And what does Buddhism truly teach ? Buddha's principal teaching is life is a boundless sea of grief. Therefore, Buddhism asks its followers to seek nirvana , the Buddhist variety of suicide, meant to escape the life that has got nothing but no end of sorrow and suffering for you.Islam preaches jihad and mut'a , you know, and Islam is also known for its feminophobia*. ( * fear of the female ) Islam is so afraid of literate, free girls that it has asked its followers to spray acid, in order to punish girls that love freedom and learning, onto their faces and riddle them with bullets. And jihad means killing innocent humans, young and old, male and female, and both kafirs and non-kafirs ( i.e. those Muslims that refuse to obey dictates of jihadis). And mut'a is the Islamic name of what you know as prostitution.And as I view it, Hindutva (Hinduism of today) means barnashram, the nonsense called idolatry, worshipping beasts (e.g. the holy cow and Hanuman, the monkey god), and banning beef eating. The enlightened view barnashram as something that not only is a downright falsehood but is an affront to the humanity, as well. And Hindutvaites love and respect beasts like cows and hanumans more than humans— so much so that they might even kill you if they can know you eat beef or do not worship Hanuman.Like palmistry and idolatry, none of astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, et cetera are sensible or scientific, as the enlightened view them. [ excerpt from The PHML ]Good stuff. I like it. [ comment by ALB on 23/03/2017 ]I am not talking about religion, the way most of these  organization act is religious. Some of them force members to get marry, and they  get involve in the personal life of their member, like the churches do. It is up to an individual to smoke or not smoke, or to drink or not to drink is up to the individual also. Many leftist groups wil not accept as member a person who has been incarcelated. The Marxist Leninists they also reject god and all kind of religion, but in many way the follow they bourgoise morality, some do not accept homosexual as part of their membership, or women because they are prostitute. The Stalinists used to say that homosexuality was a petty bourgeois mental disorder and they rejected religion  [ comment by mcolome1 on 23/03/2017 ]I'd like you to take cognisance of what in my view happens to be the most important point in regard to the true communist attitude to matrimony, namely the fact that communism happens to be fundamentally opposed to matrimony. Another most important point is none of matrimony, drugs, drinks, smoking, etc fit in with the Principle of healthy and meaningful living. How religion or some people claiming to be Marxist-Leninists or non-Marxist-Leninists view does NOT carry much weight in this matter, does it ?

[Prakash RP]

 ' The PHML disapproves of all cultures, beliefs, faiths, and practices that do not rest on sound logic or facts .Thus, belief in God, gods, or ghosts, belief in religion and religious rites and rituals, idolatry, palmistry, astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, ayurved, alternative medicine, and other similar stuff which each are just a load of rubbish, from the perspective of an enlightened human, are in conflict with the PHML.The concept of an omnipotent God is just a piece of the silly and benighted. The enlightened know it's the truth, not God, that happens to be all-mighty. And the main drawback of the idea of God the Creator is the fact that nothing but nothingness can emerge out of nothingness. Sir Isaac Newton also believed in God the Creator, but he forgot outright to throw light on how God created the great big universe with billions of stars, planets, moons, meteors, comets, black holes, pulsars, quasars, nebulae, et cetera, et cetera out of the infinite vacuum. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein who discoveredE= mc2 outright dismissed the Newtonian God the Creator. According to Einstein, the universe cannot have a ' Creator ' because it was never created— the universe, as Einstein believed, existed all along and will exist for all eternity ; it is without beginning or end, and hence cannot have a ' Creator ' or a Destroyer. The god aswell as the ghost is also, as the enlightened view it, the fruit of a flight of fancy befitting the silly and benighted.' Faith is stronger than reason, ' says the silly. But the enlightened know the faith is little more than a set of unscientific, ridiculous ideas and beliefs. Faith isn't enlightening ; nor does it have an answer to any problems relating to life or the universe, be it the accumulation of wealth at one pole leading to the pauperism of billions at the other or the phenomenon of global warming or the social pollution due to the barbarian institution of matrimony ( the poor and vulgar marry and procreate just to swell the army of the poor and vulgar and the gang of the antisocial and terrorists, and thus they pollute the society ).Christianity preaches universal love and forgiveness, which means Christianity wants you to love and forgive both the good and the bad, i.e. all the innocent along with the culprits such as thieves, robbers, murderers, smugglers, abductors, gangsters, druc peddlers, girls traffickers, child abusers, Mafiosi, extortionists, rapists, terrorists that pumped shot into Malala, the ISIS gunmen that committed the Paris massacre, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, it ought to be obvious to every sensible human now that the Christian faith is truly the path that is certain to lead the human civilisation to extinction.And what does Buddhism truly teach ? Buddha's principal teaching is life is a boundless sea of grief. Therefore, Buddhism asks its followers to seek nirvana , the Buddhist variety of suicide, meant to escape the life that has got nothing but no end of sorrow and suffering for you.Islam preaches jihad and mut'a , you know, and Islam is also known for its feminophobia*. ( * fear of the female ) Islam is so afraid of literate, free girls that it has asked its followers to spray acid, in order to punish girls that love freedom and learning, onto their faces and riddle them with bullets. And jihad means killing innocent humans, young and old, male and female, and both kafirs and non-kafirs ( i.e. those Muslims that refuse to obey dictates of jihadis). And mut'a is the Islamic name of what you know as prostitution.And as I view it, Hindutva (Hinduism of today) means barnashram, the nonsense called idolatry, worshipping beasts (e.g. the holy cow and Hanuman, the monkey god), and banning beef eating. The enlightened view barnashram as something that not only is a downright falsehood but is an affront to the humanity, as well. And Hindutvaites love and respect beasts like cows and hanumans more than humans— so much so that they might even kill you if they can know you eat beef or do not worship Hanuman.Like palmistry and idolatry, none of astrology, homoeopathy, acupuncture, et cetera are sensible or scientific, as the enlightened view them. ' [ excerpt from The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING quoted by ALB;  see ALB's comment dated 23/03/2017 ]  ' Good stuff. I like it. ' [ comment by ALB on the above quote ] Thank you a lot for liking it. In this connection, I feel I should bring it to your notice that the sensible fail to find a sound logic to justify a civilised human's indulgence in something like matrimony that happens to be a hundred per cent barbarian, both by origin and in essence, culture, and by my view of a communist, a communist is far more civilised than a non-communist. I'd like to restate the following points in defence of my stance on matrimony and would like you to take cognisance of them.  ( 1 ) Matrimony has got NO merits. ( 2 ) Matrimony, true or a travesty of it, happens to be FUNDAMENTALLY antifeminine.( 3 ) Half the sky ( i.e. the entire womanhood ) have got NOTHING truly meaningful to derive from matrimony. ( 4 ) A man is NOT a lion of a man. ( I define a lion of a man as a guy with capacity to make a worthy husband, and by a worthy hubby, I mean a guy with capacity he need be possessed of in order to be able to fully and properly discharge his matrimonial duties and obligations, i.e. to ensure the financial and social security as well as a decent lifestyle of all his family members and to ensure decent upbringing of all his kids, et cetera. ) ( 5 ) Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in an individual's life. ( 6 )  Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in society or the State. ( 7 ) All advanced civilisations along with some backward ones like India recognise and respect relationships outside of marriages and fruits of such relationships.

[Prakash RP]

[  Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 06 April 2017 :  ' There's NO good reason to believe the born poor and underprivileged, the silly millions, that don't feel ashamed of … ' ] ' Besides, getting legally married is no more necessarily " approving matrimony " than using money is approving money. ' [ ALB's comment dated 27 march 2017 ] The observation quoted above appears a fine instance of sophistry meant, implicitly, to lessen the gravity of some professed communists' disgusting indulgence in the luxury of matrimony or sheer travesties in the name of matrimony which is essentially a propertied-class institution meant to serve exclusively the propertied-class interest, as I see it. The point missed is it is an undeniable fact that while money, the filthy lucre, is something indispensable in the capitalist world for not only staying alive but leading a life of ease and luxury as well, matrimony, either the true one or the travesty of it, happens to be just a luxury, something dispensable a hundred per cent, RIGHT ? You must earn some money through some licit means ( i.e. a lawful profession such as work in a factory or an office, running a business, etc ) in order to live with some dignity. You may steal money, rob banks or engage in an illicit trade to make easy money, be found out someday, and end up in a jail. Evidently, this is NOT living with dignity. Nevertheless, you don't need drugs, drinks or matrimony either to stay alive or live with dignity. Even if you want to lead a silly, meaningless existence, you should NOT need any stuff like drugs, drinks or matrimony, do you ? The truth is like drugs and drinks, matrimony performs NO meaningful role in an individual's life or in society or in the State. All advanced civilisations along with some backward ones, such as India, RECOGNISE and RESPECT relationships outside of matrimony and fruits of such relationships. The sensible oughtn't to fail to take cognisance of these points. And in order to be a true communist, you have to be sensible first. Another most important point the sensible canNOT allow to escape their notice happens to be the fact that the commenter is aware that ' getting legally married [is] " approving matrimony " '. He just wants to play down communists' indulgence, in this space age, in matrimony, as I see it.

[Prakash RP]

[  Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 04 April 2017: ' It seems clear as day that if you're to make a choice between pragmatism ( or something like the principle … ' ] There's NO good reason to believe the born poor and underprivileged, the silly millions, that don't feel ashamed of the fact that they were born poor and underprivileged to be exploited by the born rich and the born super-rich and lead a hard and humble existence as beasts of burden are used to doing throughout their life or the fact that the fact that they were born poor and underprivileged and thus are born victims of what I view as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs and find NOTHING wrong with squandering their hard-earned money on silly stuff like drugs, drinks or matrimony, the stuff that gives them NOTHING meaningful, and so they've got NOTHING meaningful to lose for breaking with their habits of relishing such stuff, are dispensable for, or can make great big contribution to, the world communist movement. Nor do I think there exists any good reason to believe that those vulgar millions are resistant to enlightenment and reform or lacking in the calibre or willpower they need to conquer the seduction of and get rid of the addiction to drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc. The PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living has NO room for PESSIMISM. There's no good reason to believe that humanity or human civilisation has reached a stage of stagnation, in terms of quality, and is NOT capable of making any further progress in this direction. The history of civilisation gives the lie to all PESSIMISM. The fact that the Dark Ages was followed by the Enlightenment or the fact that pacifism has triumphed over imperialism proves pessimists wrong. The perpetual change reflects the law of Nature, and in keeping with this law, civilisation, society, social order, social institutions, social environment, etc have undergone constant change, and with this, humanity, human cultures, costumes, and fashions, humanity's outlook, values, principles. way of life, and standard of living have changed as well, and almost in each case, the change has been a change for the better. I think it's up to true communists and a true communist party to undertake to enlighten and reform the benighted, silly, and vulgar millions and thus make them turn enlightened, sensible, and refined. I believe it's the changed humanity, the sensible, enlightened, and refined humanity, of tomorrow who will NOT be devoid of shame and will feel ashamed that they were born poor and underprivileged to be exploited and to lead an existence that befits the beasts of burden, who'll be aware of the fact that they're NOT to blame for the fact that they were born poor and underprivileged and thus born victims of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE and the fact that addiction to stuff like drugs, drinks or matrimony  is silly and unbecoming of the civilised humanity. It's those enlightened, sensible, and refined millions of tomorrow who, I believe, will organise the communist revolution to rid themselves, and thus humanity, of the EVILS of exploitation, deprivation, inequality, and injustice. I's silly to expect the silly, benighted, and vulgar millions to take part in so great an act as the communist revolution. You can expect them to engage and indulge in all sorts of silly and vulgar acts, such as stealing, robbery, bribery, smuggling, trafficking in drugs and dames, addiction to drugs, drinks or the luxury of matrimony or sheer travesties in the name of matrimony, etc, etc, but NOT so great an act as switching over to the communist mode of production from the capitalist mode of production. I wish British socialists would soon awake to this brute and naked TRUTH.

[Prakash RP]

[  Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 03 April 2017: ' "  We hold that socialism ( or communism, the same thing ) can only come … " ' ]It seems clear as day that if you're to make a choice between pragmatism ( or something like the principle that end justifies means ) and your communist principles, you're all for abandoning your communist principles altogether, RIGHT ? And you're dead certain that this act of saying goodbye to your communist principles will promote the cause of communism, OK ? May I want to know what led you to your confidence that you're wholly RIGHT  on this point ?  What led you to believe that those silly guys that are lamentably lacking in the backbone they need get rid of their addiction to drinks, drugs, matrimony, etc can make true communists ? And what led you to believe that the damned silly like those that don't feel ashamed of their addiction to stuff like drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc or their incapability to get rid of such silly things as the addiction at issue can make significant contributions to the cause of communism ? What meaningful thing is it that you really expect from a drug addict or someone addicted to matrimony ? What significant contributions to the communist movement have such people made so far to kindle your expectation that recognising those silly non-communists as true communists would prove paying someday ? Giving up smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or vanquishing the allure of the silly luxury of matrimony does NOT demand inhuman or superhuman calibre or willpower. Neither does living a life free of drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc happen to mean leading an ascetic life. There're lots of things other than nasty ones like drugs, drinks or matrimony which the sane and sensible worldwide not only relish to their heart's content but regard as good for both body and mind. I'd like to know what led you to believe that those benighted millions are truly lacking in the calibre and will they need to rid themselves of their nasty addiction to drugs, drinks, matrimony, and similar other stuff. I'd also like to know what happens to be behind your confidence that you're outright right to view the allure of and addiction to drugs, drinks, matrimony, etc as invincible and believe that the benighted millions are so resistant to enlightenment and reform that all attempts to enlighten and reform them are certain to prove futile, that those silly, benighted millions are indispensable for the organisation of the communist revolution and building the communist order, and that those silly, benighted, vulgar millions that do NOT feel ashamed of the disgusting fact that they were born poor and penniless to work hard as beasts of burden are used to doing and to be exploited by the born rich and the born super-rich who lead a fabulously sumptuous lifestyle before their silly eyes while they, although they happen to be producers of all wealth and luxuries, lead a hard and humble existence themselves, an existence befitting beasts of burden, or the silly fact that the fact that they were born poor and penniless to work hard and lead a bestial existence throughout their life is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs and squander their hard-earned money on stuff like drugs, drinks or matrimony would ever perform any meaningful role in the organisation of the communist revolution.

[Author]

Posts