These links are NSFW.
Slender Cuties: Apr 19, 2014 – Young and slender cuties.
More Slender Cuties: Apr 19, 2014 – More young and slender cuties.
Even More Slender Cuties: Apr 19, 2014 – Even more young and slender cuties.
In the last few weeks, I have been working on a bunch of posts that deal with how the upper-middle class mindset is one of (if not) the biggest hindrances to any gradual and useful change in the current system. Though most of these specific example driven posts are still not complete, it occurred to me that many of them have similar underlying themes. The current post explores one of those themes. For the purposes of this post “white-collar” is used to denote people who either have, or aspire for, desk jobs with some petty power. They include middle-level managers, executives, doctors, lawyers, academics, engineers, scientists and pretty much anyone who gets credit and a little extra money for the work of people under them.
One of the important, but rarely discussed, differences in attitude between blue-collar and white-collar workers concerns how they related to their peers. While the typical interactions of blue-collar workers with their peers are far from good, let alone ideal- they seem to generally have significantly better inter-personal relations with their peers than white-collar workers. You might have also noticed that blue-collar labor unions have been far more common and numerous than white-collar unions. But why would that be the case? Why are blue-collar workers more likely to participate in groups which also limit their maximal potential in exchange for more security and better working conditions? More importantly, why are white-collar types so averse to labor unions?
In my opinion, it comes down to recognizing something that is obvious- but which most white-collar (and upper middle-class) types deliberately avoid thinking about. Indeed, they spend all their lives trying to do the exact opposite.
Only an idiot would deliberately and earnestly compete against his or her peers.
The most important difference between blue-collar and white-collar workers is not about differences in levels of formal education, artistic tastes or social attitudes. It is bout how they see their peers. Blue-collar types tend see their peers as colleagues (good or bad) who are in the same boat they are in. White-collar types see their peers as life-long adversaries who do not belong in the same boat they are in. Some also believe that they “really” belong to a much more exclusive boat and were just plain unlucky to land in their one they are in.
Almost every white-collar type sees his peers as his or her biggest enemy. His (or hers) biggest ambition in life is to somehow triumph over them and move to a “better” place. This is also why white-collar types are so readily seduced by ideas such as “IQ”, prestigious educational institutions, meritocracy, work ethic, thrift, hard work and all those other beliefs used by the rich parasites to exploit them for their own ends. That is also why they, more so than the parasitic rich, exhibit NIMBY tendencies.
The white-collar types live in a world of perpetual covert strife and intrigue; a world in which all human relationships carry a precise (and often very low) monetary value. They live and thrive by gaming the system. These scams range from entrance exams to certain high income (by middle-class standards) professions, choosing the right social circle, the right zip code, the right school district, the right hobbies, the right vacations, the right causes and professed beliefs.
They will invest years of their lives in “education” also known as credentialing and compete with each other to attend supposedly prestigious institutions. They will work extra hard against each other to make their already rich parasitic employers richer and become their loyal dogs and enforcers. They will almost never question prevalent beliefs and try to assert their superiority by trying to mock those who point out the obvious. They will always spend more time detailing their life choices to assert their superiority even if they seldom enjoy what they are doing- kinda like talking about diverse sexual positions without actually enjoying any of them.
They will spend every waking moment trying to rise above and screw over their peers.
And this brings us to the obvious followup question- Why don’t the blue-collar types generally exhibit this level of peer hate and contempt? I believe that this to do with a different worldview. White-collar, and other semi-autistic types, can only see what they want to see and yes.. “education” plays an important role in this creating this highly filtered world view. The blue-collar types, not possessing the mental filters of their white-collar counterparts, can see much more- including stuff that clearly contradicts official dogma. They are also far more willing to call out the obvious lies rather than politely tow the official line. Consequently they make bad managers, henchmen and flunkies for the parasitic rich.
What do you think? comments?
These links are NSFW.
3D Spanking Toons: April 15, 2014 – Assorted 3D spanking toons.
Spanking Art – Color: Apr 15, 2014 – Colored drawings of spankings.
Here is an interesting clip of a dance trio in the 8-year old (Jazz) category at a national competition in the USA.
What do you think? Comments?
The name of a 16th century “philosopher” known as Thomas Hobbes frequently pops up in discussions on a range of topics ranging from the best type of governance to whether a state is necessary for reasonably stable societies to exist. He is best known for writing a book known as Leviathan in which he argues for of a system in which a very small group of “special” people have a monopoly on violence. In his opinion only such a system could guarantee social stability and economic prosperity.One of his most famous quotes is about the state of human society without a top-down repressive regime.
In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
So why am I choosing him as the target of this post? Well.. there are two reasons. Firstly, he is a good example of the prototypical academic who will suck cock and write pretty lies for his paymasters. Secondly, his reputation needs to be demolished to the point where nobody wants to remember him, quote him or even try to recycle any of his ideas.
Many of you might wonder how something like this can be done. Wouldn’t irreversibly tarnishing the image of a long dead, semi-famous, white intellectual be hard. My answer is- not really. Think of all the famous white people who stood behind the idea of eugenics in the early 20th century. How many can you name or, more importantly even want to remember? Similarly the memories of even more famous people like Hitler, who was once widely admired in pre-WW2 UK and USA, are now irreversibly associated with evil. To put it another way, engineering large changes in the public images of famous (or semi-famous) people is actually quite easy.
Moving back to the topic at hand, let us start by looking at his early life and see if it provides any obvious clues as to why Hobbes became a servile cocksucker for the elites of his era.
Born prematurely when his mother heard of the coming invasion of the Spanish Armada, Hobbes later reported that “my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear.” His childhood is almost a complete blank, and his mother’s name is unknown. His father, also named Thomas, was the vicar of Charlton and Westport. Thomas Hobbes Sr. had an older brother, Francis Hobbes, who was a wealthy merchant with no family of his own. Thomas Hobbes, the younger, had one brother Edmund who was about two years older than he. Thomas Sr. abandoned his wife, two sons and a daughter, leaving them in the care of his brother, Francis, when he was forced to flee to London after being involved in a fight with a clergyman outside his own church. Hobbes was educated at Westport church from the age of four, passed to the Malmesbury school and then to a private school kept by a young man named Robert Latimer, a graduate of the University of Oxford. Hobbes was a good pupil, and around 1603 he went up to Magdalen Hall, which is most closely related to Hertford College, Oxford.
Hobbes was not born into a rich family and his early life was somewhat precarious. However, like many of the middle and upper-middle class of today, he had access to centers of credentialism and sophistry aka universities. It is therefore very likely that Hobbes always saw the attainment of elite-approved credentials and subservience to their power as the only realistic way to maintain a somewhat nice and stable lifestyle.
Everything that Hobbes ever said, wrote or argued about must therefore be seen through the lens of his own timid, conformist and sophistic persona. To put it another way, he was an enthusiastic mercenary for anybody who held out the promise of a bit more money, social status and a nice sinecure.
Now let us move on to a critical analysis of the validity of his writings. But before we do that, let me quickly talk about why destroying his reputation is necessary- even 300 years after his death. The arguments put forth in the writings of Hobbes are one of the foundations of modern CONservativism and many other -isms. They, in both their original as well as recycled forms, have been used to justify a variety of socio-economic systems that have brought nothing but impoverishment, extreme misery, starvation and disease to the vast majority of people while greatly enriching a few lucky sociopaths.
One the central arguments in his writings is the idea that all people are highly immoral and only an absolute monopoly of violent force in the hands of a few chosen ones can keep society stable. In some respects his ideas are remarkably similar to those used to justify Chinese-style Legalism. But are most people highly immoral and does monopolizing violent force in the hands of a chosen few really improve the living standards of most people in that society?
While I am certainly not a believer in the myth of noble savages, there is a large body of evidence that hunter-gatherers living in non-precarious environments were not especially avaricious, inhospitable or murderous. Indeed, the lack of centralized authority in such systems makes peaceful inter-group cooperation, diplomacy and exchanges more necessary than it would otherwise be. So the idea that most people will trick, steal from and murder each other without someone in charge is a sophistic lie, projection of the thinker’s own mindset or likely both.
And this brings us to the second part of that particular argument- namely that giving the monopoly of violence to a few “especially suitable” people will make somehow society more stable and better. But how can we decide who is suitable to wield such power and how do we know they are competent? Is there any evidence that supposedly “legitimate” kings are any more competent that those who became kings through less “legitimate” means? How can we define the competence to “rule” when most societies with kings or their secular equivalents (dictators and leaders of one-party systems) are really bad places to be born, or live, in- at least for the vast majority of people?
I am sure that most of you are aware that the material living standards of “civilized” people have been consistently and significantly lower than their hunter-gatherer counterparts except for the last 100-odd years. Moreover the general rise of living standards over the last hundred years are linked to the rise of technology and simultaneous decline of outright autocracy.
The two central foundations of Hobbes worldview therefore have no basis in reality. They do however tell us a lot about his worldview and those of his paymasters.
But why would Hobbes spend so much time and effort on creating this myth? There are those who would like to believe that his worldview was simply a product of the environment he grew up in. I am not so sure and here is why. His early life history suggests that Hobbes had no useful skills beyond learning, conforming and pleasing his superiors. It is also obvious that he always wanted a comfortable and stable lifestyle. So how does a reasonably clever and timid man make a stable and comfortable living in the pre-industrial era?
Obtaining royal (or elite patronage) was the only realistic and feasible occupational choice for a person of Hobbes ability, temperament and desires. In other words, he had to choice to suck elite cock and live reasonably well or not do so and live like an average (poor) person.
Now.. I am not criticizing his decision to suck elite cock to make a stable, decent and trouble-free living. Pretty much anybody in his situation would have done the same. My real problem with Hobbes is that his works are still seen as serious and objective philosophical insights rather than as literary blowjobs to his masters. Doing so is the equivalent of using the collected reminiscences of a house slave as a defense and justification for the institution of slavery.
Hobbes was essentially a clever house slave who got better food, clothing and living quarters because of his ability to flatter his master, justify his brutality and constantly tell him how all those other “lazy and evil” slaves would be lost without the “benevolent guidance” of his master.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Nubile Cuties: Apr 11, 2014 – Slim, young and nubile cuties.
More Nubile Cuties: Apr 11, 2014 – More slim, young and nubile cuties.
Here is an amazing spoof of your generic mass media ad on YouTube. Seldom have I seen a spoof capture the essence of its target so perfectly. It also shows the very american emptiness, superficial cheerfulness, misdirection, other assorted lies and pretty presentation that attempts to hide the banality of evil.
What do you think? Comments?