So it appears that my suspicions about Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s accuser were right all along. Evidently she has a rather interesting history including connection to immigration fraud, money laundering and other fun stuff. After taking this new information into consideration, it is worth considering a possibility that occurred to me some time ago.
She might have supplemented her income by providing sexual services at her place of work. A hotel with 3,000 $/night suites frequented by rich and powerful men would be a good place for an attractive woman, of any race, to provide sexual release- for a price.
The very fact that she discussed the benefits of crying rape with her jailed “fiance” around the time she made the accusation suggests that she was aiming for some sort of half-assed extortion scheme.
another funny thing fact about her- apparently neither she nor her teenage daughter have AIDS, yet they live in a low-rent apartment complex meant for people with HIV or AIDS.
One of the most important features of our current socio-economic system is that rewards are a ‘bizzaro’ version of what they should be in a rational society.
A person’s income and stability of livelihood is inversely proportional to his/her utility to the upkeep, let alone progress, of society.
Don’t believe me? Here are some examples- add more if you want (in the comments).
Let us start with hedge fund managers, investment banksters and other assorted financial-type scumbags? Do they serve any purpose other than using other people’s money to bet on and manipulate the prices of everything from corn to crude oil? What about their role in creating fraudulent financial instruments? But we still reward them exceedingly well, don’t we?
What is the function of a CEO or anyone on the board of directors of a corporation? How often do they fulfill that obligation in anything other than the namesake? But aren’t they amongst the most well paid of “employees”? How often have you seen them destroy one company through their stupidity and then moving on to a better position at another? How do they get into upper management? Competence and ability or scam, accident of birth and luck?
Professionals are another category of scamsters, though far less richer than the ones we just talked about. Aren’t many professions from doctors, pharmacists to lawyers just monopolistic cartels with a significant percentage of incompetent, redundant and generally useless people? But aren’t those jobs great- with excellent stability, considerable latitude for malpractice, little scams and other perks?
Government bureaucrats are no different. Once again they have excellent pay, with considerable nepotism in recruitment and great job stability. Most don’t work hard, which is actually a good thing for everyone else. Private sector versions of these critters populate middle-management and HR. Once again they are often the last people to be fired and first to be rehired once their current company goes under.
Certain government jobs with utility such as law enforcement, regulatory agencies etc often end up doing stuff that is removed from their original purpose but nevertheless enjoy excellent compensation, something they share with education critters such as teachers and academics.
It is as if we deliberately choose to reward people based on how harmful, useless, incompetent and sociopathic they are. While I have written about the perverse incentives which partially fuel this problem, it is obvious that the real problem is even deeper. It has something to do with societies built on an ever-increasing amount of laws and regulations.As I have said before- a multitude of laws and rules are the best ally of sociopaths.
Do I really have to explain this one?
Germany and the USA had very high unemployment rates (effectively above 30%) and social unrest when Hitler and FDR came into power- in 1933. While they both went down the Keynesian path and achieved economic recoveries, their legacies turned out to be.. different.
The point here is that in the face of severe economic downturns, such “liberal” economic policies are inevitable. You can either have a megalomaniac seize power and implement them or elect a reasonable guy to do it.
These links are NSFW.
Self Shots: June 28, 2011 NekkidCuties
Self Shots: June 28, 2011 Nudie Cuties
More Self Shots: June 28, 2011 NekkidCuties
More Self Shots: June 28, 2011 Nudie Cuties
Have you ever wondered why the average Indian who has any power is a petty bigot obsessed with control? This holds true both inside India, and outside it- though that appears to be changing.
Before we go any further, it should be understood that such attitudes are seen in all cultures- but seem to be especially strong in old world cultures.
Stagnant cultures, be they Indian, Chinese or French, tends to promote such people into positions of control and power. It is actually possible to quantify the degree of stagnation by looking at the prevalence of such attitudes in the governing institutions of that culture.
So what comes first- the chicken (dysfunctional people in government institutions) or the egg (stagnation)?
The chicken-egg analogy is especially apt since an increase in one leads to an increase in the other and vice-versa creating a ‘positive’ feedback loop. In my opinion, the egg (stagnation) comes first. All institutions have a certain percentage of scumbags, even if everything is growing and progressing.
The rise of scumbags can be traced to a certain type of magical thinking.
Let me explain that with an example- Imagine a culture where regular rainfall is necessary for good crop yields and is celebrated with a few human sacrifices. Now picture their reaction if the rains became irregular or started to fail. There are two distinct directions out of this quagmire-
1. Improve water management, population dispersion and grow alternative crops.
2. Sacrifice more people to placate the rain gods.
What do you think will happen? and why?
If you guessed that most cultures will go for option # 2, you are.. correct! The ‘why’ (aka reasoning) is however more complicated than most of you realize. People are likely to choose # 2 because it is easier and invokes good nostalgic memories. Option # 1, in contrast, represents the unknown and thinking through a problem- something most people abhor.
Therefore those who promote # 2 (tradition) will get more support during periods of stagnation when everyone is nostalgic for the good old days of plenty. Given that the ranks of such a traditional priesthood will most likely be filled with the most regressive and repressive scumbags, it is no wonder that such societies will start spending far more time thinking up more elaborate and rule-ridden rituals to please the rain gods. They will also vigorously oppose anything that even vaguely suggests they are wrong, fraudulent, ineffectual or just plain scum.
Prolonged economic or social stagnation therefore paradoxically selects the small-minded, control freak and ideologically rigid over those who can actually reverse the decline. Another related issue is that lay people will try to rationalize their initial choice for option # 2 by demanding ever more extreme CONservatism- something the human-sacrificing priests are only too willing to oblige.
In the end, petty bigots obsessed with control will wield most of the power.
Sheeple then rationalize and normalize the resultant dystopia. They expect people in positions of power and decision-making to behave like that. Of course, doing that leads to massive stagnation and dysfunction- but by then almost nobody cares.
People who have seen too many ww2-era documentaries and archival Nazi propaganda footage might believe that Mr. funny-mustache was always popular in Germany. Unfortunately, their version of history is lacking in facts. Prior to the severe unemployment crisis in early-1930 Germany, he and his ideologies did not have mainstream acceptance. Sure, there was always a minority of ardent supporters for his world view- but it was not something that most mainstream Germans were enamoured by or wanted to associate with.
While Nazism gained some respectability in Germany because of the onerous conditions imposed by the Versailles treaty- it never became mainstream till the early 1930s. Read a bit about how marginal the Nazis were, even at the height of disorder during the Wiemar republic. So why did that ideology gain popularity so rapidly in the early 1930s?
It has to do with loss of public faith in the established “elites”.
From the end of ww1 to the rise of Mr. funny-mustache, various combinations of the old “elites” had tried to fix the system and keep it afloat- often with disastrous consequences. They simply could not seem the fix things well enough, as each new solution seemed to work for some time and then unravel. The white- and blue-collar workers kept on suffering because of a drop in their living standards, destruction of savings and overt unemployment.
The straw that broke the camels back was the massive increase in unemployment in the early 1930s. Here is article about that phenomena.
and here is probably the most striking graph-
You will get Keynesian economic policies one way or the other.
Now have a look at this recent article-
Yahoo Article: Out of work for a while? Tell us your story
Read the over 1,600 comments and ask yourself- Why can’t something similar to what happened in Germany in the 1930s occur in the USA. Don’t forget that things were much more precarious during the 1930s in the USA than is widely believed.
All of the talk about media ignoring Tom Ball’s self-immolation tends to overlook the two most important reasons behind why Thich Quang Duc’s self-immolation was successful in destroying the Diem regime in Vietnam.
Have a look at the famous Pulitzer prize-winning photo-
Do you see two factors that made his sacrifice so memorable? He had two things that Tom Ball did not have-
1. A sympathetic audience (note the monks around him).
2. Visual documentation (remember that this photo won the Pulitzer prize in 1963)
Here is a video clip of that event.
I have pointed out, in many previous posts, that online life is successfully competing with ‘real’ life. Whether we look at the importance of computer games, social media and even how we keep in touch with people we know in ‘real’ life- things have changed a lot since people used Netscape 1.0 on Windows 3.1.
One of the important results of this shift has been the creation of social niches (and groups) which did not previously exist.
Let me explain that with a personal example-
You see, I always had a strong interest in spanking naughty girls. However prior to the intertubes, my ability to know about the prevalence of this interest was rather limited. While I did find willing girls even before the intertubes, it was somewhat odd to bring up with a potentially willing girl. That is no longer the case and the intertubes are full of terabytes of text, pictures, videos, newsgroups and a lot of people who want to talk about it. Therefore a formerly taboo-ish topic is now practically mainstream.
The same can be said of stuff like escorts, pubic shaving, body piercing, anal sex.. you get the picture.
But does this not also apply to ideas and views beyond sex? Would concepts like game, MGTOW, objective assessments of what women are really like, universities as scams, mainstream dietary and medical experts as frauds etc have taken off without the intertubes?
Let me explain this concept with an alternate reality scenario.
Imagine a world just like ours, but in which the internet did not exist or was hard/scarce/ expensive to use. Now imagine how different Ferdinand Bardamu’s life would have been in that alternate reality. We can look at 40-somethings today as a guide for that alternate course of events.
He would have quickly run into the wall of limited possibilities. While some of them would have been of a more mundane nature, such as not being able to easily search for jobs in somewhat distant places- the biggest effect would be on his worldview.
Think about how many women would not be keeping their cooters bald today if it was not for the direct and indirect effects of the internet. It created and normalized the demand that women keep it hairless. Now imagine him trying to convince girls to shave/wax their muff in a world where the internet had not made it normal.
The same can be said about what he now think about women. If FB was born, say.. 15 years before he was, any misgivings he had about feminism would have been beaten out of him by women, white knights, manginas, mainstream media and academia. He would simply have nowhere to go and find out if his views, and experiences, were similar to other men. He might have accepted a lot of shit from the women he dated, and might even had to deal with stuff like child support.
Even worse- he might have come to love ‘big brother’.
Similarly his views on a variety of subjects from experts, academia, race, family, manliness etc would have been overtly influenced by people in his immediate physical vicinity, official experts and their traditional views. He probably would have assimilated and then defended those ideas even if they were against his best interests. His views on issues like rape, capitalism, justice and many other issues would be quite different from what they now are.
So how, and why, does the internet affect his interactions with the ‘real’ world?
While he, and many men of our generation (born in the late 1970s or later), have seen stuff which is very different from what tradition teaches and older people believe in- many others have not. However, one cannot unsee the matrix or perceive people who are still plugged in like before. They, and their worldview, feel distant and alien even if they are physically nearer. Often, you cannot even help them see alternate possibilities as their egos and emotional attachments get in the way. I know what I am talking about..
The end result of this peculiar series of events is that those who have seen the matrix start drifting away from what was traditionally considered to be their identity, groups and roles. A hybrid online-‘real’ identity is a common outcome and most of their new ideas and experiences now come from the online world. In that respect, ubiquitous smartphones and laptops have merely streamlined a process which started with desktops connected to the internet.
Did I mention that there is no worthwhile ‘reality’ to reintegrate with?
The process of an online world displacing the traditional one has begun on a large scale since the early-mid 2000s. It will probably accelerate and in combination with feedback loops will start manifesting itself in the ‘real’ world more frequently and with greater consequence as the months and years roll by..
A popular song from about 11-odd years ago, and it is topical. Don’t forget to have a look at nekkid pictures of Cheyne Coates below the embedded video which may have to opened in another browser window.
and here are the old nekkid pictures. Please don’t try to find current pictures of her as she looks pretty awful now.
So let us start-
1. People like to get high.
People have been using drugs to alter their state of consciousness for thousands of years. Drugs, of one kind or another, have been used by people across time, environments and cultures. The precise set of reasons behind that need do not matter. Note that in cultures where people do not live mind-numbingly pathetic and boring lives, drug addiction is not common even if casual drug use is high or universal. Ever heard about widespread cocaine abuse in south american tribes? What about universal heavy tobacco smoking amongst native americans? Why are there so few pot addicts (if they exist) in India?
2. The high cost of drugs in so-called civilized countries is a function of high demand and illegality, not manufacturing or extraction cost.
Have you heard of an illegal market in buying and selling the droppings of rare birds? Can you say the same about low quality pot? What about oxycodone tablets? Why would people homebrew methamphetamine? Obviously there is a rather strong baseline demand for drugs.
Do you really think that making or extracting drugs is that expensive? Heck, most drugs can be synthesized and purified to pharmaceutical grade products for a few cents per pill. If WalMart can fill your hypertension medicine or antibiotic prescription for a few bucks and still make a profit, don’t you think that it is possible for any recreational drug? Chemically speaking, most recreational drugs are easier to synthesize or extract than many prescription drugs.
3. The “war on drugs” has decreased the price of drugs and improved their quality and accessibility.
Is it easier to get high-quality pot today than say 20 years ago? Why has the quality of methamphetamine improved since domestic law enforcement shut down home-brew operations? Isn’t cocaine today cheaper and purer than it was during the 1980s? WHY??? Why have all the funds spent on, people employed, prisons built, people incarcerated, laws passed in the “war on drugs” resulted in improved drug availability, quality and lower price? Something isn’t working.. at all.
4. With the probable and partial exception of PCP and alcohol, drugs do not cause unprovoked violent or dangerous behavior.
When is the last time you saw a person high on opiates endanger other people? what about pot? Even amphetamines and cocaine do not make people spontaneously kill others. User and addicts, with unlimited access to drugs are far more likely to hurt themselves than others.
5. Making some drug illegal while keeping others legal is based in “morality” not ethics or reason.
How many people die from cigarettes and alcohol? Do you think that the total morbidity and mortality from all other drugs legal could ever match it? But why are alcohol and tobacco legal? Tradition? Revenue source?
Those who want other drugs kept illegal have little interest in reducing morbidity or mortality from drug use. If anything they want to maim, imprison and kill others for trivial reasons. They are therefore sociopathic scumbags instead of the moral pillars of society they fancy themselves.
6. Anti-legalization people are venal hypocrites.
Most anti-legalization types are CONservative and LIEbertarians who talk a lot about how they hate big government, laws, courts, regulations and embrace the free market and personal responsibility. Yet these same scumbags want more cops, prisons and enforcement to punish drug users.
Only a pathetic, extermination-worthy subhuman could oppose governmental functions such as food inspection, basic environmental and financial regulations and then turn around to demand that the very government he so vehemently detests stop others from having a good time with their own money buying stuff in a free market.
I may expand on this post in the future depending on reader responses.
Ever wondered why sociopaths exist? Many people have pondered over the reasons behind their existence, and some have even written books about them. However almost all of them make one implicit assumption.
Sociopaths are different from normal people.
Many stupid or disingenuous “scamademics” go to great lengths to try and demonstrate that sociopaths are somehow defective or have alternate brain circuitry. While that may be true in a small percentage of sociopaths, the vast majority of people with sociopathic tendencies are not that odd or different. Many who believe in the vodoo “science” of evolutionary psychology try to attribute the survival of sociopaths to some reproductive advantage, though it is unclear how such people or their progeny would have escaped retribution in lawless societies- if they were truly different.
There is another rational, but tasteless, explanation for the existence of sociopathy and sociopaths which involves a different explanation for the motivations behind human behavior. Most belief systems try to explain human behavior in one of two ways. Some prefer to see humans as ‘fallen angels’ who are not intrinsically evil. Others tend to see humans as ‘risen apes’ who carry a lot of baggage from their evolutionary past. But there is a third possibility..
Humans are delusional, self-aggrandizing scumbags with a massive ego and an extremely limited ability to back it up.
My experience with human beings suggests that this is, unfortunately, the best explanation for human behavior. Both the ‘fallen angel’ and ‘risen ape’ models require the vast majority of humans to have some ability for objective introspection. How often have you seen that?
On the contrary, you are far more likely to see people behaving in a manner that suggests the unwillingness to think objectively or reason. Don’t believe me? Here are some examples-
How many guys does an average woman “truly” fall in love with only to leave them for her next “true” love? While biology can explain this behavior in non-sentient species- is that really possible in humans? Would a sentient person be able to do this peculiar mental dance without at some level being aware of what is really being done?
How often have you seen employers mistreat their employees even if there is no objectively measurable gain from such behavior? Why would so many people, in so many cultures and different eras abuse power- even if were ultimately a losing proposition? Ever heard of the Stanford prison experiment? Why do even average people behave like sociopaths when given the ability to do so?
Why do whites who are routinely abused by other white spend so much time scrutinizing the criminality of non-whites? Who screws you out of more money- a white realtor or a black ‘criminal’? a white employer or a black ‘criminal’? a white spouse or a black ‘criminal’? Who is more likely to kill you- a white doctor or a black ‘criminal’? a white “justice” system or a black ‘criminal’?
Why would so-called clever people waste their best years working hard in careers that will never reward them during those very years? What is the use of having millions and billions of dollars if you are too busy, stressed, scared or old to enjoy it? However we have no shortage of people wanting to be doctors, lawyers or engineers? Are they really intelligent- or just clever morons?
I can give you many other examples- but you get my point. Human behavior is just too peculiar to be rationalized unless you accept that it has a rather strong base of sociopathy, delusion and narcissism.
There is therefore probably no clear delineation between “normal” human behavior and sociopathy.
Sociopaths are just ahead of the curve.
Is it just me or is there something “odd” about the psyche of people in mexican drug gangs?
These links are NSFW.
Self Shots: June 23, 2011 NekkidCuties
Self Shots: June 23, 2011 Nudie Cuties
More Self Shots: June 23, 2011 NekkidCuties
More Self Shots: June 23, 2011 Nudie Cuties