As many of you know- I don’t see any real difference between faith in traditional religions, so-called cults and quasi-religions and secular religions. All belief systems which rely on the unquestioning faith of its followers are scams perpetrated for the benefit of a few at a massive cost to many.
But have you ever wondered- What does the willingness of true believers to actually believe in utter and obvious bullshit say about them?
Some of you might counter by saying that most people are dumb and while that may be true- it is inadequate to explain the sheer amount of bullshit most believers readily accept. Let me illustrate my point with a few examples-
1. Let us look at the Judeo-Christian creation myth, specifically the intersection of sexual morality in that strain of monotheism and the story of Adam and Eve. Now since Adam and Eve were supposedly the only human couple on earth, wouldn’t any grandkids come through incest between Eve and her murdering son or another son, or the murdering son or another one fucking one or more of the sisters, or through Adam knocking up his daughters?
Now you would think that this rather big problem in the myth would have been obvious to pretty much the first average guy who heard it- but how many people talk about this issue at any length? Isn’t it odd that this story was retained in the myths of three major religions given the excessive obsession of monotheistic Judeo-Christian with shaming anything that falls outside a very narrow spectrum of behavior?
I mean, couldn’t the priests have made up the story such that their god created a few hundred couples? If you are an omnipotent god who can create the universe, what is the trouble with knocking out a few more Adams and Eves while the creation machine is on?
2. Now I will turn my attention to a popular secular religion known as environmentalism. While this belief system has many similarities to Catholicism as other have previously pointed out- it has one peculiarity that sets if apart from traditional religions.
Environmentalism central, but rarely expressed, dogma is- people are bad and must die. While I am very misanthropic and would like to see people die, I do not try to makeup cover stories about saving the world to justify my misanthropic thoughts. To me- it is about revenge and schadenfreude.
Environmentalists on the other hand have an incessant need to make up cover stories to justify their carefully hidden misanthropy. They just have to oppose and try to play spoilsport about anything that might make the lives of someone else better. While the target of their self-righteous fraud covers a spectrum of things from an increase in atmospheric CO2, automobile use, building cities or building factories- the overall narrative is the same. It goes like this- “Doing this will cause horrible problems and kill people”. It is most peculiar that environmentalists are particularly upset when that activity will increase the living standard of non-white people.
They somehow don’t see the hypocrisy of talking about environmentally friendly bullshit when they themselves live in and benefit from very “environmentally unfriendly” systems. But are they really that stupid?
What do you think? Comments?
Once in a while, I put up posts with pretty much the sole purpose of getting extra blog traffic for my more intellectual posts. Consider this one as another one in that line..
I saw a news article a day or two about Amy McCrow, a 20-year-old University of Glamorgan student, who decided to get naked while participating in a wet t-shirt contest. While she blames cheap booze and the chance of winning a 50 £ (~ 100 USD) prize as being the major reason behind her very well documented romp in that kiddie pool, I know better.
Have a look at the video of her performance, still available on the vkmag post about that story, and you will realize that she was neither really drunk, nor coerced and was totally loving the attention. As you can see in the video- she has a pretty face, very nice pair of tits, tight body, nice legs and ass. I have downloaded that video and will post even more screenshots if they take down the uncensored videoclip at vkmag.
Just another glimpse into the power of cellphones, cheap digital cameras, social media and the internet.
Enjoy these first..
How many of you have seen the new-ish “Vietnam in HD” series about the Vietnam war? If you have not, I would strongly recommend you do so- partly because it is has lots of unsanitized footage about what war is really like. I will however concentrate on less obvious, but far more important, messages in that series which are obvious after watching a few episodes.
So let us begin..
1. American soldiers who fought in that war were, at least in the first 2-3 years of extensive ground involvement, unaware of what they were fighting for and the nature of that war. They actually believed that they were fighting a reasonably conventional war against a poorly equipped and racially inferior enemy rather than an incredibly large and nasty insurgency.
They saw themselves as the liberators in post D-day France, when in reality they were surrounded by people who deeply detested them while acting polite. A large number of american soldiers also believed that they were fighting communism rather than acting as the goons for an imperialist power.
2. They routinely underestimated the intelligence, tenacity and resourcefulness of the Vietnamese. They did not understand that the Vietnamese fought the war with an intention to bleed the american armed forces rather than win against them. The Americans might have fought to win, but the Vietnamese fought with the aim of increasing the cost of US occupation to levels where they were not sustainable.
The USA was spending then-astronomical sums of money on newer and ever more expensive weapons against targets that were inexpensive, redundant or often not even worth hitting. Furthermore, while most Vietnamese casualties were deaths the majority of US casualties were severe and often permanent injuries- which were far more economically damaging.
3. The Americans underestimated the efficacy of weapons like AK-47, RPG-7, small-caliber mortars, improvised explosive devices and booby traps. While these weapons did not win the war for Vietnam, they increased the cost of maintaining US ground presence in Vietnam to then unprecedented levels. To put it another way, no American soldier could ever feel safe in Vietnam whether he was in his camp or on patrol.
Between this constant vulnerability and the inability to separate combatants from civilians- the USA simply could not pursue any viable strategy to win the war. Every ambush made the US armed forces kill more civilians thereby creating even more Vietcong recruits and supporters.
4. The various leaders, regimes and armed forces propped up the USA in Vietnam were supremely corrupt, greedy and unmotivated. They were in it for money, power and other payoffs. They had little interest in actually fighting or killing other Vietnamese on any significant scale. Did I mention that they were also seen as greedy traitors by their own people..
Furthermore many of the soldiers in the US-backed Vietnamese armed forces had strong pro-Vietnamese nationalistic beliefs. They saw their jobs as a means to earn a living by doing the absolute minimum required to keep it. The USA had no real Vietnamese allies- just “friends” of convenience.
To make a long story short, USA made pretty much the same mistakes in 1960-era Vietnam as they made (and are still making) in post-2001 Iraq and Afghanistan.
What do you think? Comments?
A movie titled Pleasantville, released in 1998, gives you the best insight into the made up mental world and mythology of ‘alt-right’ types.
The overall story of the movie can be summarized as- Two 1990’s teenagers find themselves in a 1950’s sitcom where their influence begins to profoundly change that complacent world. In my opinion, this is one of the best but somewhat under-appreciated movie from the 1998-2000 time span ranking up there with American Beauty, Fear and Loathing in Vegas, The Siege etc.
Here is the trailer. Enjoy!
For the last few months- Political and other public figures in the USA have been making a lot of noise about “creating middle-class jobs“, “creating new jobs” and “bringing jobs back“. While the upcoming 2012 election cycle is the temporal cause of this sudden increase in expressed concern for the jobs and livelihoods of Americans is due to – I am going to use these fake expressions of concern to ask a real question-
Where are these new and well-paying jobs going to come from?
I mean.. don’t all jobs exist to create a product or deliver a service- regardless of whether it is useful, useless or harmful? You might have noticed that better machines, faster and more versatile computers, very high levels of automation, overseas slave labor and a host of other factors have made it very easy to increase productivity without employing more people. Employment in the US private sector has either stagnated or decreased since the late 1990s, even though the gross and working-age population has increased by more than a few million in that period. Then there is the issue about quality and stability of newly created jobs.
You might also have realized that inflation-adjusted wages for the vast majority of people has either stagnated or decreased since 1973. This has however not affected the still rapidly rising cost of medical “care” or “education” or a host of other big-ticket items. While the relative cost of certain items like laptop computers and clothes has decreased, one cannot live in a laptop or in a house made of cheap clothes or subsist on hamburger helper and pink slime beef.
So let me repeat the main question posed in this post-
Where are these new and well-paying jobs going to come from?
Remember that our system is largely based on jobs = money = existence, so no jobs or poorly paying jobs is equivalent to killing people. People who have nothing to lose will likely take those who put them in that situation with them- actively or passively. Moreover the demographic profile and distribution of power and technology in the world today makes it extremely unlikely that were will be any marginal victors, let lone clear ones, in a meltdown.
I hope that you realize that this problem cannot be solved based on previous experiences and beliefs because human beings have never lived in a world that was as populated, interlinked, interdependent, complex and peculiar as the one we have today.
What do you think? Comments?
You might have wondered about the reasons and forces behind a series of poor decisions made by Google within the last two years. From the gaffes of former CEO Eric Schmidt, Chrome OS debacle, Chrome OS netbook debacle, half-assed development of Android OS, building the ghost town known as Google + to its recent change in policies regarding pseudonym use and recent changes in user agreements.
Why would a company which was once so innovative and capable of getting things right lapse into such a pathetic state of affairs?
So let us start..
The first one involves the metastatic spread of “shareholder” capitalism. Fun fact- the vast majority of shareholders get screwed under shareholder capitalism. Unlike companies a hundred, or even fifty years ago, most large companies today are run with an eye on short term share prices and fluctuations thereof. Therefore almost no large company today is run for the purposes of generating decent and stable dividends or with ANY regard to the future of the business. Anything beyond the manipulated quarterly and yearly reports is irrelevant. The MBAs, lawyers, lobbyists, banksters and other assorted ivy-league CONmen run amock at the expense of everyone else aka short-termism.
Then there is the issue of how innovative corporations who grow quickly absorb the same petty scumnbags who populate other mediocre companies. I have written about this in some detail in a previous post- Sociopathy, Management and Emerging Organistional Dysfunction. The gist of the post is that innovative corporations that grow quickly end up being staffed and run by uninnovative, rule and procedure obsessed, power-hungry, petty “people” eager to flex their new-found power, with disastrous effects for the organization.
It is also worth mentioning that large hierarchical organizations such as corporations are full of cliques and sub-groups who spend a large percentage of the effort on sabotaging each other and wielding power to gain more control of the organization. Since our current setup isolates such power-hungry and insecure sociopaths from the consequences of their actions, they will often keep on playing their stupid and dangerous games until the coroporation they seek to take control of is no more. Microsoft has suffered from this on a large-scale since Bill Gates resigned as CEO and Steve Jobs was the only reason that Apple did not succumb to this problem as long as he was alive.
Finally there is the issue of “imperial” overreach in which the leader in a given area feels that they can get away with anything regardless of physical and temporal realities. Examples include England on the eve of WW1, France in Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan and the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. Corporate examples include IBM in computer hardware and the American ‘Big 3′ in automobiles etc.
While each problem is formidable in its own right, Google appears to have the misfortune of suffering from all four problems at once. While they have still not reached levels high enough to irreversibly cripple and implode the company- they could find themselves in that spot in as little as a year or two.
What do you think? Comments?
For the last few weeks, the internet was filled with a lot of opinion about SOPA, PIPA and similar laws. Based on what you read on various websites and blogs, it is obvious that most of you spent a bit too much time looking at the minutiae of these laws. I do not bother with that stuff, as it tends takes away from what they really represent.
Most of you see laws like SOPA, PIPA etc as the problem. But is that really the case?
Let me use analogies. Is the presence of metastases in various organs of a person dying from cancer anything more than the result of the underlying disease? Is the fever caused by an infection anything more than the symptom of the underlying illness?? Are bubbles in boiling water anything more than a visual manifestation of the water’s temperature?
The real problem is something far larger than SOPA, PIPA or anything in that vein. It is about an ongoing conflict between an increasingly unviable “elite” top-down version of the world and a more egalitarian world that is more compatible with current technological capabilities.
For those of you who might wonder if it technology can be stopped, I have a suggestion- read some history. Every nation, group or culture who tried to stop technological progress to maintain the status quo got their ass handed to them by those who did not. Furthermore, certain aspects of human nature prevents perfect cooperation between individuals however high the stakes, such that a world-wide implementation of anything that restricts the willing parties actions will be unstable. People are just too greedy, narcissistic and short-sighted to maintain disciplined collective action,especially if it is more profitable to abandon it.
That is why all agreements, treaties and contracts (even those between equal parties) ultimately collapse or become irrelevant.
Now this does not mean that the “elite” and various rent-seeking industries won’t try or even succeed passing or implementing such laws, if onlyin the short-term. While such doomed measures won’t change the direction of technological progress, such attempts could certainly cause short-term problems. Therefore I proposing a different way to deal with such “traditional minded” people.
Protest, petitions and other demonstrations of public opinion are short-term solutions to the problem- at best. Remember that you dealing with sociopaths whose are obsessed with maintaining power. It does not take a genius to figure out that the so-called democratic and “fair legal” systems in western countries are neither democratic or fair. Stopping one or two pieces of legislation does not stop the sociopaths from reintroducing it under a different name, rationalization and wording.
The only permanent solution to this problem lies in getting rid of those who benefit from legacy systems.
That implies destroying their core model of business and very existence. There are various ways and combinations thereof to achieve that goal. While the obvious ways of eliminating people and their progeny are, should we say, rather obvious- many of the not so obvious ways of doing that appear fairly harmless. Let me illustrate this point with an example or two.
As many of you know- there are only 24 hours in a day. In previous eras you were forced to consume print and audio-visual media produced by organized mafia-like industries with the ability to create and distribute content. Today we have many other ways of entertaining ourselves that do not involve paying large and established corporations.
Every minute you spend playing some 99 cent game on your iPhone is one minute that you are not listening, seeing or reading content produced by the media cartels. That is also the case when you check your FaceBook, Twitter Feed, blogs or play an online game. The same holds true for any type of media or content that is not created by or distributed through traditional media cartels.
The stranglehold of traditional media was sustainable only as long as production and distribution of content was too expensive for the true creators of content. That cost stranglehold has been broken at multiple points and levels within the last 10-15 years. The game is up, but the parasites have still not accepted this new reality- and it is unlikely they ever will as long as they live.
Then there is the previously mentioned issue of actually eliminating those who benefit from the status quo and their foot-soldiers. I will write about it in a future post though one or more of my previous posts talk about this issue in more general terms.
I saw an interesting post on gizmodo.com about the consequences of increased use of drones and robots in wars. Anyway, the centerpiece of that post was a documentary by Al Jazeera about that issue. It is somewhat ironic that a news organization called Al Jazeera based in a somewhat benevolent totalitarian regime, does real journalism- unlike the so-called free press in western countries.
In any case, have a look. I am working on two or three longish posts at this moment.
These links are NSFW.
Inhaling Cock: 1 No, they are not putting it up their nostrils.
Inhaling Cock: 2 They are just enthusiastic, really enthusiastic.
Inhaling Cock: 3 and most of them are quite OK to look at.
I saw a link to this particular YouTube video in my FaceBook feed. Enjoy.. or not. LOL
As some of you might have heard, Newt Gingrich the great crusader for personal responsibility and defender of black enslavement is having a little problem with an exposure of his past. It seems that Newt wanted an open marriage with his second wife so that he could screw other women while being married to her.
Then again, his position could be based on the bible.. what do you think?
I had initially planned on writing a long article about this issue, but then realized that my points would be best conveyed in a brief article that concentrated on the core issue.
As many of you know, more than a few asian countries currently have a very skewed male-heavy sex ratio amongst its younger generations. The reasons behind the most recent version of this phenomena involve a peculiar mix of cultural beliefs, technology and changes in the socio-economic structure of those societies. But this post is not about those peripheral issues, which in my opinion are a sideshow.
The real question is- What makes a parent capable of killing their kids for reasons that are not based in objective reality? and who does the actual killing anyway?
The conventional feminist interpretation of female infanticide goes something like this.. Eevviill patriarchy victimizes poor women driving them to kill their girl children- either before or after birth. There are however a few problems with this idea-
1. Female infanticide is uncommon or nonexistent in non-asian societies. Indeed societies spanning a range or races, ethnicities and cultures from West and East Europeans, pre- and post-1492 Americans, African cultures and pretty much everyone except Asians are not into systematic female infanticide.
2. Every single human cultures require women for reasons other than breeding- specifically to work in, around and outside the house. Therefore the idea that Asian cultures perceive women as less valuable than men based on their ability to work does not make sense as women in those societies do work inside and outside the home.
3. Asian societies are not patriarchal for the simple reason that Asian men (Chinese, Indian, Japanese etc) are dickless wonders and mama boys. There.. I said it. The partiarchy explanation for female infanticide would be viable if Asian men were not feminized drones who live to make money for their super greedy and materialistic wives.
This brings us to the next question- Does a man care about the gender of his children as long as they are his? and would he kill his own children for no reason other than their gender?
The simple answer to that question is that men don’t have strong gender preferences for their kids- irrespective of race, culture or ethnicity. The average guy (black, white, indian, chinese) could care less if a baby was a boy or girl, as long as he was the father. Men are, if anything, more protective towards their daughters than their sons. Therefore the whole idea that poor, brainwashed and pressured women kill their girl children because strong masculine men disapprove of them is laughable- at best.
So where does that leave us? If strong patriarchal masculinity and male preferences cannot rationally explain female infanticide in Asian countries, what else can? Have you noticed something else linking Asian countries which used, or continue, to practice female infanticide? Every Asian country with a female infanticide problem is full of supremely greedy, materialistic and superficial women. Daughters (unlike sons) are competition for the attention, resources and status of their mother and grandmothers.
A more rational, though tasteless, explanation for female infanticide is that greedy, materialistic and status conscious Asian women see a male-heavy gender offspring ratio as beneficial to them- even if that means killing their competition.. I mean daughters.
The best part of this scheme is that their effeminate drones (Asian men) can be blamed for creating an environment of “patriarchal oppression” which makes impressionable naive women murder their own daughters and grand-daughters. Face it.. defending your murderous actions through the defense of weak will sound better than the Nuremberg defense.
What do you think? Comments?
I have never said this before- but most of CONservative, LIEbertarian, “alt-right” and other assorted morons have one thing in common. Are you ready-
They are from the working class
That is right! People ranging from Piggy, 1STD, Half-Shitma, Mangy, Unamused, “Sober” and probably even Roissy are working class men who were born in the right country at the right time. Now, you might wonder how I came to this conclusion. So here it goes..
You see, I am not from the working class. None of my ancestors had to perform physical work to make a living for least a few hundred years, or likely much longer. While they often did manual work for amusement and dabbled in new technology (a lot), they never had to depend on working with their hands to put food on the table.
I therefore have a rather unique perspective on what it means to be born at third base.
Let me tell you something- all of this talk about IQ, meritocracy, hard work, personal responsibility, pulling yourself by your bootstraps etc is disingenuous bullshit which working class men are dumb enough to believe in. Do you really think that somebody from my social class is privileged because they are especially talented at anything other than ripping off working class morons?
Do you seriously believe that my ancestors achieved their status and lifestyle through anything other than previous advantages, some luck and a little hard work?
Do you really think that the upper classes in western countries are any different? Do you really think that IQ, hard work or merit is the major factor behind the success of most people? That is what people from my class like to tell people from you class. Deep down more than a few of us know that there is no worthwhile difference between us and you- but most of you don’t.
That is why working class morons are far more likely to be true believers in slave ideologies such as CONservativism, LIEbertarianism, Nationalism etc.
But keep on enthusiastically digging your own graves. People like me certainly don’t mind profiting from your stupidity.
OK, by now some of you must have heard that Rick Santorum’s wife spend most of her 20s riding the cock of a guy almost 40 years older than her who, get this, delivered her as a baby. It certainly does not help that the guy was a strongly pro-choice gynecologist. You might have also read Ferdinand Bardamu’s post about this news- basically suggesting that Santorum is a pathetic beta chump. I am going to now ask the next logical question-
Is Rick Santorum a closeted gay?
Some of you might think that is an odd question, given that he has had many children- but then again so has Ted Haggard. My reasoning is based on an interesting observation about republican politicians in the last 20 odd years.
The strength and source of their particular moral outrages are usually linked to their own personal demons.
Newt Gingrich was trying to impeach Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife with an intern and lying about it, when he was doing the same thing at that time. A host of republican politicians have exhibited similar behavior- from Mark Foley who faked moral outrage about child abuse while secretly chasing underage boys to Mark Sanford lecturing others about maintaining the traditional family while screwing his Argentine mistress. It is not an exaggeration to say that the you can identify a republican personal demons by listening to what he preaches and rails against.
Rick Santorum has always been extra outraged and obsessed with the gay lifestyle and “licentious” sex. Is it not worth considering the possibility that Rick Santorum may infact be a closeted gay or bi-sexual guy?
Kinda like this one..
What do you think? Comments?
One of the more overlooked facts about modern publicly traded corporations is that they are functionally almost identical to medieval fiefdoms. While a few others have compared them to 20th century totalitarian states, such a comparison is far too flattering for such organizations.
Totalitarian states, from Nazi-era Germany to present day China, differ from modern publicly traded corporations in many fundamental ways.
1. Successful totalitarian states throughout human history reward their faithful supporters in both obvious and non-obvious ways on a long-term basis. Modern corporations, in contrast, do not reward their faithful workers over the long-term and are only too happy to get rid of them at the slightest hint of trouble or a chance to make more profits.
Fiefdoms did however operate on a similar model and almost everybody in such systems was involved in a game of intrigue, deception, fraud and screwing each other for the smallest of reasons and gains. They therefore tended to be low productivity, low trust systems with frequent outbreaks of overt and covert violence.
2. Successful totalitarian states are capable of attracting, retaining and promoting competent people along with the usual bottom feeders. Nazi-era Germany, pre-1945 Japan had and present day China has a lot of genuinely competent people in very senior posts. Modern corporations, on the other hand, are defined by their ability to concentrate incompetent and deceptive bottom feeders to the exclusion of genuine competence.
Fiefdoms were similar to corporations in that their inner circles were devoid of genuinely competent individuals, and were instead full of witty sociopathic courtiers who owed their fortunes to chance and birth.
3. Successful totalitarian states will often actively better the life of their average compliant follower, if only to justify their rule. Even Stalin did many things to make Russia better for Russians- though some of his methods and actions killed lots of people. However a comparison of the conditions in Russia when Stalin took power to those present when he died do show that he was able to improve the lot of the average Russian (who had survived him and ww2).
Modern corporations expend a considerable amount of effort in actively reducing the quality of life of its compliant workers. The “elite” in medieval fiefdoms also spent a lot of time trying to reduce the quality of life for everybody to protect their power base.
4. Successful totalitarian states are afraid of publicly visible or obvious failures because they understand that their ability to continue ruling is linked to keeping things working. The leaders of modern corporations have no fear of failures of their enterprise as they can simply loot from the failing enterprise and hide behind laws, procedures and the pretense of “justice”. Feudal lords and courtiers, like CEOs and upper management, often looted a collapsing fiefdom with impunity and ran away to nearby friendly fiefdoms or kingdoms.
What do you think? Comments?