In many previous posts, I have pointed out that CONservatism is far more anti-men than many others -isms. Some of you might counter- “but this is not real conservatism”. My answer is-
Ideologies should be judged by their real-world implementation, in multiple instances, rather than how they sound in theory.
Consider the following.
1] Who is interested in making most men fight wars which are not meant to benefit them? Is it not CONservatives, of varying religious and ideological stripes, that want most of YOU to sacrifice YOUR life for their greed? Fuck patriotism- what has your country, group, tribe done for you?
2] CONservatives talk a lot about how they support men’s rights, until their daughter, niece, grand-daughter etc on the line. When the situation involves their own female progeny, they suddenly switch sides? You want to place your faith in such backstabbers?
3] CONservatives talk a lot about how fiat money is “bad”. Ask yourself, who benefits from a gold based currency, and why? The reality is that only those in power and those who can steal, cheat and rob benefit from a gold based currency? Do you really think that a gold-based currency will benefit you?
4] CONservatives talk a lot about “law and order”, but who does it benefit? Not YOU! Law and order is a scam to screw you, enslave you, pauperize you and control you. In real life, you are far more likely to be legally robbed of all your possessions by a CONservative white guy, not some black guy.
5] What kind of life do CONservatives want you to “live”? Is it one of relative happiness, peace , prosperity and stability? Nope! They want you to live hand-to-mouth, work yourself to an early death, be swindled by laws and rules, “accept you place” and thank them for shitting on you. Oh.. and i forgot about the part about telling you how to behave in your own house. Why does the CONservative plan seem a lot like voluntary slavery.
Most white and asian men are “special” in that they can be talked into voluntary slavery, unlike black men.
6] Belief in elites, authority, hierarchy is an intrinsically CONservative concept. You cannot run pyramid and ponzi schemes without them. And who exactly do these CONservative elites despise? They despise and sneer at the very men who stupidly work for them and make their luxurious lives possible. Suckers!
7] CONservatives talk a lot about merit, IQ, intrinsic superiority etc. What do they have to show for it- other than the spoils of theft, cons, scam and murders? If they were truly superior and more competent, they would not have to say so.
You don’t have to be convinced that the sun exists at midday, but it requires a lot of lies and delusions to ‘see’ one at midnight.
8] So was the life of most men pleasant when CONservatives ran the show? All I will say is- “read some history”.
These links are NSFW.
OK, here is a question?
Who is responsible for more preventable deaths: An average doctor or a median convicted murderer?
Important: I am not counting deaths due to physician errors, oversight, unclear disease presentations, problems with diagnosing uncommon diseases, lab test errors, hospital administrative errors, equipment malfunction etc.
I am restricting my definition of preventable deaths caused by physicians to the following categories:
1] Physicians who prescribe drugs known to increase net mortality without any therapeutic effect on the disease/ condition being treated (Example- COX-2 Inhibitors for Inflammation, Atypical anti-psychotics for senile dementias or “difficult kids” etc).
2] Physicians who give information that has been shown to have no basis in reality, and is actually harmful. (Putting Type-2 Diabetics on a low-fat/ high-carb diet, advising against moderate alcohol consumption for patients who have survived a MI- heart attack)
3] Physicians who knowingly prescribe drugs/therapies that do not increase survival to any worthwhile extent but are very expensive and have serious side effects (anti-cancer “therapies” for most metastatic cancers)
4] Physicians who direct or mislead patients into surgeries or therapies that are expensive, result in a much poorer quality of life when less expensive/ invasive options are available (most cases of prostate cancer in the post-65 age group can be managed with drugs/targeted local irradiation as opposed to surgery which is expensive, causes tons of problems and has a very marginal effect on survival).
What do you think?
NSFW links to pics of busty cuties.
The following are excerpts from an article in a British Newspaper-
Hopefully, someone like Ferdinand Bardamu will satirize the contents of this article.
Women desperate to have children are turning to unregulated websites to find sperm donors. Now the sites stand accused of being unethical and a health risk. Olga Craig and Michael Howie report
The couple’s liaison lasted little more than five minutes and was conducted, in swift and furtive fashion, in a city car park late one Friday night. When their business, hurried and impersonal, was concluded, they shook hands awkwardly, wished each other a stilted “good evening” and left in separate cars, with no suggestion that they might ever meet again. If all runs smoothly, however, in nine months’ time, their baby – the result of that car park encounter – will be born. Their swift transaction was not, as one might assume, of a sexual nature. Instead, Peter Smith simply handed over a specimen flask containing his sperm to Clarissa, a 42-year-old IT consultant he had met on the internet. The insemination process, he says, was a matter for her alone. He had honoured his part of the pact: the future was solely Clarissa’s concern.
Hmm.. go on..
Like so many women who long to have children, she initially contacted a reputable and licensed fertility clinic where she underwent two cycles of treatment. But with each costing £1,500 and involving a lengthy wait (in some areas of the UK, as long as eight years), thanks to a nationwide shortage of donated sperm, she became one of the thousands of women who have resorted to unregulated fertility websites.
How did humans make babies before the age of ‘regulated’ sperm banks?
But while these women’s desires are commonplace, the consequences can be anything but. Yesterday, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) admitted it is launching an investigation into what it considers the abundance of “unethical” fertility websites. The body has become concerned that they could put the health of vulnerable women at risk, leave a generation of children facing future heartache, and have long-reaching legal implications for both mother and donor.
Really! ‘Unethical’ as in worse than getting knocked up from a fling, STR or a ‘bad boy’?
Its decision comes in the wake of the trial of Nigel Woodforth and Ricky Gage, who netted £250,000 for illegally acting as “bagmen” via an online fertility operation they ran from a basement. Convicted at Southwark Crown Court last week, they are awaiting sentencing – the first to be found guilty of procuring sperm without a licence from the HFEA, contravening legislation that came into effect two years ago. The legislation, which entitled children born as the result of licensed sperm donation to track down their natural fathers, has discouraged men from donating sperm, fearing they will become financially responsible for the resulting offspring.
They owe me a new keyboard.. ROTFLOL
Increasingly, those such as Co-ParentMatch.com and FeelingBroody.com are seen by women anxious to conceive as quicker and cheaper alternatives to the regulated route. Such is their popularity that one site alone receives more than two million hits each month. The thousands of members of such sites pay monthly subscription fees – although the donor isn’t paid as such, the sites may recommend a “courier fee” of as high as £150 – and most women agree to pay incidental costs such as hotels or travel.
I am not making this up!
The women who use the site are, in the main, professionals – many in high-powered jobs – who want to be mothers but do not want the baggage that goes with a long-term relationship. Their reasons are many and varied. Pam, single and 41, wrote in her profile: “Becoming aware of biological clock ticking away and, being single, felt I need to be quite proactive about seeing what other options were available.” Another, Pkare, single and 32, writes: “I want a child but haven’t found a man worthy enough to take the status of ‘father’, so it is down to me to take things into my own hands.”
I did not know that being in an LTR was necessary for getting knocked up, and what is this thing about a guy being worthy? Most guys do not see kids as “status” accessories.
One major concern over the sites is that, unlike in regulated clinics, such sites guarantee none of the health safeguards against sexually transmitted infections or HIV. There is no formal process to ensure that sperm donations are “clean”, leaving the women to rely solely upon the donor’s word, or medical certificates he produces. And all too often the men involved are seeking what the websites describe as “natural insemination” – shorthand for no-strings, unprotected sex.
I am shocked, shocked that men want to have no-strings unprotected sex. Won’t someone think of the children!
According to Dr Allan Pacey, from the University of Sheffield, the fact that most donors become involved for purely financial reasons means they have little incentive to ensure they have a clean bill of health. “A licensed clinic will run tests before taking samples, and again six months after the last sample was taken and frozen,” he explains. “And it is only after this final check that the sperm is used. These sites cut out that process, which means the women are at risk from blood-borne and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. [Donated sperm] may also carry genetic disorders such as Down’s syndrome.”
How did this moron get a medical degree.. then again most people who become doctors ARE pompous morons.
The risks, he says, are even greater if the donor has a predatory intent. “If a man wants to impregnate women, insisting on natural insemination, that ups the likelihood that he will be in poor sexual health. It is blatant profiteering at the expense of women who are driven by a very natural and biological maternal urge.”
White knight/ mangina alert!
As Louisa Ghevaert, a partner with the specialist fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert, points out: “Peoples’ desire to have a child is incredibly strong and shouldn’t be underestimated. Women who run the gauntlet and conceive informally with a donor without understanding the legal issues risk misery not just for themselves but for the child, in the future. And there are risks for the donor, too. He may be treated as the legal father, with all the accompanying financial responsibilities. The mother risks unwanted involvement from the donor if he seeks to assert his status. “The child, in later life, may not be able to trace his or her biological father. Donor-conception law is very complicated and people can easily fall foul of legal pitfalls if they do not appreciate the difference between conceiving at licensed clinics and conceiving with privately donated sperm. The consequences for the unwitting can be devastating.”
Why does this attitude not surprise me?
On most sites, women can outline how much, if any, contact they want with a donor, and many draw up what they believe are binding contracts. But in law, the documents are worthless. Recently, Andy Bathie, a fireman from Woking, who fathered a child through an informal arrangement with a lesbian couple, was contacted by the Child Support Agency seeking maintenance. The child’s “parents” had separated and Mr Bathie was left with a bill for £425 a month
It was already out there but very ad hoc.” Some men, she admitted, contacted the site seeing it solely as a way to have sex. “If men go on and say they will only offer natural insemination, I would stay clear of that and most do.” For many women, the sites have brought little but heartache. Clarissa – who had a profile on a sperm donor website and agreed to speak to the Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity – has, to date, contacted five donors but has not conceived with any of them. “I ignore the men who insist on natural insemination and those who want a relationship with the child,” she says. “I like to keep the whole thing business-like, frankly. I ask a lot of questions about their health but, admittedly, I have no way of checking if they are telling the truth. Then we make an arrangement to meet for the hand-over. It’s as simple as that. “But it hasn’t worked, and I’ve had terrible trouble with two of them who keep pestering me online. Frankly, I’m glad I didn’t conceive because they are clearly the type who thought this whole thing would lead to some sort of sexual relationship. All I wanted was a child of my own. Now I feel I’ve been used in a rather grubby sort of way.”
And this woman wants to have kids!
Others, such as Susan, a 44-year-old from Oxfordshire, have had more positive experiences. With one son already, Susan desperately wanted another, but did not want a new, long-term partner. “I wasn’t in a relationship, and didn’t want to get into one,” she explains. “I went on the site and got lots of responses. In fact, I was flooded with them. I started to chat to my donor, and that went on for six months before I decided to go ahead and start the process. I was very specific in what I was looking for, even though there would be no contact between the donor and child. I wanted a well-educated person with personality, intelligence, and a similar background to myself – university educated. He also had similar features to mine.” Susan and her donor developed a routine that worked for them. “As I didn’t want to come face-to-face with him, I prepared a room in my house for him. Then I would disappear into another part of the house and he would let himself in and go into the room. He would leave the sperm and, once he’d gone, I would inseminate myself. I was very relaxed about it. It wasn’t at all an uncomfortable experience. Rather, I would say the experience was tremendously positive. To this day we still haven’t met, although we do talk on the phone still. I regard him as a good friend.
I am at a loss for words!
“I worked with him and tried to become pregnant with his sperm for about a year, but the closest I ever got was a six-week pregnancy, which ended in miscarriage. I had given myself a time period, deciding that if I wasn’t pregnant within a year, I would stop. So I decided to call it a day. My only regret was that I didn’t decide to do it earlier.”
Maybe that was for the better of the kid who was not born!
Ok, there is no nice way to introduce this question. So here it is-
“Are the children and grandchildren of those who personally wronged you legitimate targets for reprisals?”
Don’t worry about the age or ‘innocence’ of the targets. The extent, methods and depravity of such reprisals is also not relevant.
It really boils down to a more fundamental question-
If someone wrongs you (significant and repeated) for no fault of yours, are you justified in seeking ANY remedy, including those that involve doing things which would write new chapters in the annals of human depravity?
If person A goes out of their way to try and hurt person B, has person A lost any claim to mercy or humane treatment from person B?
Many people believe that civil and progressive societies require an ever-increasing number of laws, rules, bylaws and enforcement to function effectively.
I believe the converse is true- Anything beyond basic laws and regulations (for stuff like murder, theft, physical injury, fraud, cheating etc) will corrode and ultimately destroy any society stupid enough to go down that path.
The reasons behind this apparently paradoxical effect are obvious, but often ignored-
1] Laws are made by those with power for maintaining and extending their parasitic behaviors. Most laws legislate rent seeking behavior and punish/hinder innovation or progress. Laws legalize theft, murder, fraud, usury and injustice by the powerful.
2] The second most common source of legislation are control freaks. These people want power, control and the ability to meddle in lives of other for its own sake. They have NO interest in improving the lives of the people they pretend to care about.
3] Laws are enforced and interpreted by people with sociopathic, narcissistic and delusional tendencies. They have no interest in the spirit of the law, and are principally motivated by opportunities to screw over other people.
4] Due to the nature of the legislative process- it is possible to create laws that legalize or penalize anything under the sun, without any grounding in reality. Laws can make slavery, fraud and usury legal. Conversely laws that make the consumption of alcohol and drugs or sex between consenting adults illegal can also be created and enforced.
5] Laws and regulations create an ever-increasing number of jobs for sociopathic parasites while starving productive sectors. An increase in the number of these sociopathic parasites in turn results in the creation of even more laws and regulations.
6] The net result of 1-5 is a gradual but hard-to-reverse loss of public faith in that society, which leads to the next stage- legislative overreach and legalism.
7] While there are many definitions of legalism- I prefer to use the most straightforward one.
Legalism is a social “system” in which people follow laws without giving thought to reality, fairness, consequences or feedback. Such systems are usually enforced by an ever-increasing amount of lethal force (law and order).
Legalism is legislative overreach, because any system that requires extensive coercion, force and deceit to function through enforcing an ever-increasing number of laws and regulations is the very definition of overreach.
8] Societies that have achieved stage 7 (legalism) lose the ability to innovate and progress. They also lose social cohesion which affects their ability to respond to external threats and challenges.
Sooner or later, such a society will come across an adversary or situation large enough to put significant pressure on it. However the loss of productivity, innovation and social cohesion converts what could have a difficult victory into abject defeat and disintegration.
This is how large empires and civilizations end.
I will let this picture do the talking.
She is one ‘gift’ that keeps on giving..
Listen to this clip.
NIES: I tell them to be careful. You have to wear a condom. You have to protect yourself when you’re going to have sex, because they’re having it anyway…There’s nothing that you or me can do about it.
O’DONNELL: The sad reality is — yes, there is something you can do about it. And the sad reality, to tell them slap on a condom is not –
NIES: You’re going to stop the whole country from having sex?
O’DONNELL: Yeah. Yeah!
NIES: You’re living on a prayer if you think that’s going to happen.
O’DONNELL: That’s not true. I’m a young woman in my thirties and I remain chaste.
Here are a few other posts about her-
Satire often does a better job of pointing out the obvious.
Stephen Colbert testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Security.
Anyone care to disagree with this one?
From Kung Fu Monkey
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
The self-named Bonus Expeditionary Force was an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups – who protested in Washington, D.C., in spring and summer of 1932. Called the Bonus March by the news media, the Bonus Marchers were more popularly known as the Bonus Army. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The veterans were encouraged in their demand for immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates by retired U.S.M.C. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time.
The war veterans, many of whom had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression, sought immediate cash payment of Service Certificates granted to them eight years earlier via the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924. Each Service Certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier’s promised payment, plus compound interest. The problem was that the certificates (like bonds), matured twenty years from the date of original issuance, thus, under extant law, the Service Certificates could not be redeemed until 1945.
March of the Bonus Army- part I
March of the Bonus Army- part II
March of the Bonus Army- part III
During times of unprecedented socio-economic changes, most people believe only type of outcome is possible. However their certainty about the eventual outcome comes in two flavors.
Nostalgia- They either wish, hope or yearn for a simpler time.
Linearization- Think that the scam can continue without system evolution.
While both beliefs might appear to be different, they are derived from the same base assumption- “neither the game, nor its rules, have changed” aka the ‘steady state assumption’.
Strategies to cope based on a ‘steady state’ world-view can be seen as ‘Plan A’.
There have been periods in human history characterized by negligible change for hundreds or even thousands of years. However the pace, nature and extent of changes in the last 200 years has no real equivalent in human history- since or before the invention of writing and record keeping.
The only thing we have learned from the last 200 years is that the future can be more bizzare, unpredictable, full of opportunities and dangers than we could have foreseen, in our wildest dreams. Therefore, any belief in a steady state world borders on stupidity irrespective of how intelligent it sounds.
The real question then is-
How can you adapt to a system which you do not fully understand? How do you make decisions in a changing world, with less than optimal information? What is your ‘Plan B’ irrespective of its flavour?