Did you know that the 1940-era comics in the Batman Franchise hint that both Batman and Robin were a gay couple? Don’t believe me? Have a look at a small collection of panels from Batman comics of that era.
Sleeping together, Tanning together and Skinny-Dipping with Boys..
Horseplay in the shower, carrying Robin in his arm and Pink Batsuits..
and finally, a rather suggestive panel.
Since many bloggers are writing about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, I have also decided to share my thoughts about this unfortunate event. First the basics..
Trayvon Martin was an African-American teenager who was shot and killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a man of mixed ethnicity (Latino and white American). Martin, who was unarmed, had been walking to the home of his father’s girlfriend from a convenience store when Zimmerman, a community watch captain, followed him after calling the Sanford Police Department, saying he witnessed what he described as suspicious behavior. Soon afterward, he fatally shot Martin.
Regardless of your opinion about Trayvon, George, Wannabe cops, Race, Florida or any thing else- we can all agree that Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman. There is also no doubt that Travyon was unarmed while Zimmerman was armed with the handgun he used to kill Trayvon. So the real question is about the motivations for, and behind, the killing.
There are those who say that George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin to death, if only in self-defense. So let us see if this argument holds up..
1. Would George Zimmerman have been arrested if Travyon was white and George was black? Let me remind you that this event occurred in Florida, which has historically been one step up from Alabama and Mississippi as far as treatment of blacks is concerned. If you are disingenuous enough to suggest that race of the victim was not a major factor in the perpetrator not being charged, I have a bridge to sell you..
Have you noticed that most Americans pay attention to missing person reports on TV only if the ‘victim’ is female, white and blond? Why? Could it be that they do not value the lives of people of other races? Based on even a cursory observation of white Americans, it is fair to say that they exhibit more concern for missing dogs than black men.
2. There have been attempts to suggest that Trayvon was somehow a budding black thug based on an empty bag with marijuana “residues”, snapping at a bus driver, writing graffiti and having “tools” which “might” be useful in committing burglary. But is that really usual given his age? I can bet that most of you did everything Trayvon did when you were 16.
Moreover, is that really sufficient justification to kill a person? Would you still use this justification if the victim was white and the perpetrator was black? and isn’t suggesting that his dress was “thuggish” really that different from murdering people because they dress like hipsters or emos? Then there is the question whether Trayvon had actually stolen something or killed someone when he was killed by George.. because if he had not, then George really had no justification to stalk and kill him.
3. Some have said that George shot Trayvon in self-defense or during a scuffle. But how did that interaction start? Did Trayvon stalk and jump George or did George stalk and harass Trayvon? Was Travyon looking for George or vice-versa? Was it not George who initiated the hostile interaction with Trayvon? Did he produce any ID that he was a block watch guy? and how was Trayvon supposed to know that George was not lying?
How many of you would like to be stalked and harassed by a strange fat guy when you are walking back to your house at night? How would you react? Would you not confront the stalker? So why apply a different standard for Trayvon? Furthermore, why should you believe George Zimmerman’s account of the events? Isn’t it his word against that of a dead person- who, I might add, he killed. Based on the time lines of the phone calls and multiple post-shooting eyewitnesses, the entire interaction lasted less than two minutes- maybe less than a minute.
4. Why did it take the cops three days to identify the body as that of Trayvon Martin? Think about it- Trayvon had a cell phone and most likely a wallet on him. What were the cops in Sanford so busy with that they did not have time to promptly ID a dead black boy? Is this delay really excusable in our day and age? and why did it occur anyway?
Could it be that the Sanford cops treated the killing of Trayvon Martin as if he were a dog? make that a stray dog as they would have probably tried to ID a tagged dog and contact its owner. The very fact that the cops took three fucking days to ID Trayvon speaks volumes about how the Sanford police department perceives blacks.
I might write more about this story as events unfold and newer information becomes available.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Self Shots: Mar 26, 2012 – Thank you Tumblr!
More Self Shots: Mar 26, 2012 – History will note that Tumblr made nekkid self-shots mainstream.
For most of human history, physicians were incapable of effectively treating serious diseases. Indeed their efforts frequently resulted in their unfortunate patients dying and suffering at far higher rates than they would have otherwise endured. Physicians only gained the ability to have any worthwhile impact on the course of major illnesses in the 1940s- largely due to technological improvements secondary to ww1 and ww2 which included the development of new drugs (sulfonamides, antibiotics, first anti-cancer drugs, first effective anti-hypertensive drugs, better vaccines etc).
Note that physicians have had almost zero input in developing all of the drugs and technology which now allow them to be somewhat effective in practicing medicine.
Since a significant number of people who get into medical school have always been money and power-hungry, but lesser and timid, CONmen- they took full advantage of the situation to market themselves as mini-gods who required tons of money to exert their magic on their patients. Make no mistake.. few people who enter that profession care about anything beyond enriching themselves and bossing around sick or dying people.
When modern medicine came into being (after ww2) the population of western countries was young and relatively healthy. Consequently most of their diseases were acute or subacute, rather than chronic. Many of the then new drugs and treatments such as antibacterials, antivirals, anti-inflammatory, anti-psychotics etc were quite effective at treating many of these illnesses. For a time things looked good..Then the fertility rates dropped to sub-replacement rates and the population got older.
Today most of the illness treated by physicians are chronic. While we have made advances in treating such diseases, our abilities to treat them are pretty pathetic compared to what we can do for acute/ subacute diseases. However the need for more money and profits are driving physicians, hospitals and pharmaceutical/medical device companies to attempt to treat them with drugs and methods of dubious efficacy.
Therefore we have now reached a point where most medical treatments (by dollar value) is used to obtain small or dubious gains in life expectancy at the cost of considerable suffering for the unfortunate patients.
Most rational people understand that prolonging the life of an ill person to the point that it causes considerable suffering without any hope of recovery is not desirable and doing so is effectively torture. So why are physicians around the world, but especially in anglo-saxon countries, so opposed to euthanasia?
The standard and official explanation is that physicians look out for the best interests of their patients and want to protect them from harm. However medical errors, obvious misdiagnosis, negligence and other forms of medical malpractice are officially the 4th leading cause of death. Therefore the ‘ we are protecting patients’ line seems a bit hollow.
An alternative explanation is that patients with chronic and hard-to-treat diseases are cash cows, and the cost of specialized care and treatments of dubious efficacy are the major source of income for physicians.
Access to easy euthanasia would cause a considerable reduction in the income of many physicians. For most of them the specter of reduced income outweighs any consideration of the patients quality of life or suffering.
What do you think? Comments?
This post is about something I have seen in real life and the virtual world. In the past I used to find it infuriating, now I just find it amusing- albeit in a sadistic manner.
I am talking about “wannabe whites”.
So what constitutes, and does not constitute, wannabe white behavior? and why is it so irrational, bizarre, irritating and ultimately funny? My initial exposure to wannabe whites came through interactions with some of my close relatives in N. America. I later noticed the same mindset, behavior and attitudes in groups ranging from Filipinos to Iranians and South Americans.
Most wannabe whites are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from countries colonized by European countries in the 18th-19th century (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines etc). Some are immigrants from countries with a white ruling class (South American countries). Inspite of their diverse racial and cultural origins, wannabe whites think and act in a remarkably similar manner.
1. They go to ridiculous lengths to publicly prove that they are culturally whiter than white. Now I am not suggesting that people should not change behavior over time and space, but what is the point in trying to be somebody else? Is it even profitable to do so? I fail to see how such behavior achieves anything beyond providing entertainment to whites and non-whites. A good example of such behavior can be observed by reading the blog (and comments) of a brown moron known as Razib Khan.
2. They are always trying to convince whites and non-whites alike that they are ‘more whiter’ and therefore ‘better’ than others from their countries of origin. You might have noticed a certain moron called the Fifth Horseman try to convince others that I was “Sri-Lankan” (less whiter) than him. Apart from the fact that I look rather different from what he might imagine, how are the looks (or race) of any person even relevant to the validity of their ideas?
3. They try to constantly tell whites and non-whites that other people are human scum who deserved the ‘civilizing’ influence of whites. While I am critical of Indians, my opinions about east-Asians, Arabs, Whites etc are equally (if not more) negative. I am a misanthropist and proud of it. However many wannabe whites never seem to tire of telling others how bad people in their old country are. A blogger known as Atheist Indian is a good example of this dysfunction.
4. They always hold people who look like them to much higher standards than whites. When a white person screws them over, they see him as ambitious and clever. When a non-white screws them over, they see it as an example of cultural duplicity and dishonesty. But how can the same act be two totally different things depending on the skin color of the perpetrator? You can see a lot of this behavior at sites like Sepia Mutiny and especially in a recent post on that website.
5. They try to downplay everything good or substantial done by people who look like them and exaggerate everything that is even remotely bad about them. This behavior resembles what I talked about in point 3, but occurs on the level of culture and worldview rather than individuals. Most ‘famous’ Indian journalists and “intellectuals” perform a lot of cultural self-flagellation and self-denigration with the hope of being finally “recognized” by whites.
Might write more about this issue in a future post.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you know, Mitt Romney has a certain inability to connect with potential voters because of his frequent and very convenient shifts in views on pretty much everything.
Have a look at this YouTube satire set to Eminem’s 2000-vintage hit “The Real Slim Shady”.
False hope has been a major, if not the biggest, cause of human suffering throughout human history. Belief in the success of endeavours that have a zero, or close to zero, chance of succeeding can consume a lot of resources and time which could be used in a much more productive and fruitful manner.
But what exactly is false hope? and how does it differ from thinking big, day dreaming, optimism, grit and tenacity?
Some of you might see the difference between them as a matter of degree rather than absolutes, but is it so? Let me explain with some ‘non-false hope’ examples-
1a. Consider the wish to start and own a successful restaurant, bar, food truck or a similar small business. While the initial failure rate for such endeavours can be quite high- success is possible and easily observable as almost every one of us knows somebody who has been able to run a successful small business. Moreover failure in the first or second attempt does not preclude ultimate success.
2a. Many people want to age well as they get older. Once again.. a combination of lifestyle, exercise, diet, supplements, medications can greatly increase your chances of aging well. While you cannot completely insulate yourself from genetic disease, chance and sheer bad luck- it is certainly possible to reduce age-related deterioration of the body.
3a. It is possible to increase your success with women by not being a supplicating, timid pushover with oneitis. While you may not meet your ‘soul mate’, it will certainly get you more (and likely better) ass than you can get as a conscientiousness nice guy.
Now that we have covered a few examples of non-false hope, let us turn to some that illustrate false hope.
1b. The chances of becoming really rich, super-rich, famous or powerful are practically non-existent for most people unless you get really lucky or were born into it. I am not implying that it is impossible, just very unlikely and not worth wasting much sleep, let alone serious effort, over. It also does not help that no amount of money or power can make you immortal or omnipotent. Your very slim chances of becoming the next famous sport star, actor, performer or business mogul are not worth the almost certain loss of your youth, time and health.
2b. The chances that you will survive most metastatic cancers is slim to none. While a few less common cancers (most testicular cancers, many lymphomas, most childhood leukemias etc) are survivable even after significant metastasis, the common ones (most types of breast, colon, lung)are simply not worth treating with the intention to cure or slow down once they cross certain levels of metastasis. Indeed, treating such widely disseminated cancers aggressively causes far more suffering and loss of life quality than symptomatic treatment and palliative therapy.
3b. While the chances of having a pleasant and relatively stable domestic life have never been particularly high at any time in human history, trying to do so today is a fools endeavour. Between the high risk of divorce, child support, betrayal, economic ruin on one side and a relatively sexless marriage with lots of passive-aggressive bullshit from aging cunts on the other- it is hard to recommend long-term relationships with women.
The difference between non-false hope and false hope is therefore best understood as the chance and usefulness of success in any given endeavour divided by the risk of failure and the magnitude of the loss or sunken costs.
The first three examples in this post had moderately respectable rates of useful success with moderate risks from failure. The second three examples had very low rates of useful success with high risks and costs from failure.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Educated BJs: Mar 15, 2012 – Girls with glasses playing skin flutes.
Young Titties: Mar 12, 2012 – Nubile Titties!
Over the years, I have read a lot of books on history from various sources. Based on what I have read and seen in real life, it is obvious that history is really an account of human folly, magical thinking and stupidity. But how could so many people act like such fucking idiots for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?
I have always found it hard to believe that every single person in a tribe, village, town, city, state or empire was stupid. The range of human variability seen in families would necessitate some people in the aggregation to be significantly less stupid than others. But how does that explain the ability of stupidity and bad decisions to perpetuate themselves?
Some of you might say that the overall direction of a society would be determined by the actions of the stupid majority who drown out the not-so stupid people. But that is not so today, nor was it probably ever the case. Look around you- how many people invented all the components of the personal computer, internet or even printing and writing. That is right.. a miniscule minority of people did those things and changed society forever. So it is clear that a profitable idea proposed by a miniscule number of people can have massive effects on human societies. Furthermore most people are not particularly stupid, greedy or short-sighted. Indeed they are fairly rational and decent.
So how do you get so much folly, magical thinking and stupidity from groups of people who are not that stupid?
I have a theory to explain this paradox that does not rely on abstract academic bullshit. It has to do with the way societies have been organized, human ego and mental limitations. To better understand how I came to this conclusion, let us look at a rather interesting feature of human history.
All large-scale changes in human history require the death, or discrediting, of old people and their ideas. Whether the deaths are from natural or unnatural causes is irrelevant.
I believe that the problem stems from the fact that human hierarchies are based on age. Therefore the person who heads any organization is probably an older person who benefits from the current setup and the people directly under him are slightly younger cronies who too benefit from the status quo. Since these people live reasonably comfortable lives with lots of power in their own little dung-heaps, they have absolutely no interest in improving things or changing the status quo. Indeed their position is weakened by anything that improves the lives of those under them. Now factor in things like human ego and mental limitations and it is easy to see how older people with any worthwhile amount of power will abuse the rest to get a good deal in the short-term, regardless of its impact on the long-term or everybody else. As I have mentioned in a previous post, the pyramidal age structure of human societies through most of human history also allowed the some older people to screw everybody else. It is now easy to see how bad or hubris ridden decisions made by the older people in power, with an eye on maintaining it, can screw up things for everyone else- including eventually themselves.
So how can we change this? and why now? The answer lies in the ongoing global collapse of fertility which has deprived the powerful older morons of their supply of naive idiots to abuse and dispose. We also live in an era where it is much easier to spread information and ideas that are controversial.
The message that has to spread is that older people with any worthwhile amount of power are bad for everyone else and must be terminated- by any and all means. Note that I said older people WITH power- not just older people or old people as I am not suggesting that we just off people over a certain age. The idea is to get rid of older people who are still in the hierarchy or have significant influence on decision-making. It is also important to get rid of the progeny of such people, be they kids or grand-kids, as power and privilege is often hereditary.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you know, I often take positions that are outside conventional ‘norms’ on a variety of issues. Here is another one..
I believe that the interests of all concerned parties are best served if Iran develops nuclear weapons.
You might wonder how I came to this rather odd conclusion. As I will demonstrate, my take on this issue is very rational. So let us start..
1. The technology needed to develop nuclear weapons is neither very hard nor that secret. Any nation at or beyond the level of 1950s-era USA can develop effective nuclear weapons. Most nations which can build nukes have chosen not to do so for non-technological reasons. No amount of sabotage or even bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities is going to ultimately stop them from acquiring those weapons, if they really want to have them. Attacking Iran, if anything, will expatiate the process and rationale for acquiring them.
Unless the USA thinks that it has enough soldiers and money to occupy Iran for a few years, any military action is worse than useless. Nuking them is not really an option as it will cause every country in the world to build their own nukes for use against the USA and Israel.
2. A nuclear Iran is not going to become any more dangerous or capable than it is now. Using nukes in a first strike against Israel or the USA will be suicidal for them and their greedy and corrupt leaders are too cowardly to do that. It is also unlikely that Iran will give nukes to non-state actors as they would become the ‘return address’ for any retaliatory response subsequent to the use of those weapons.
Let us not forget that Iran is too dependent on oil and gas exports to run its economy. Any real or prolonged conflict is bad for business, and the leaders of Iran are as hypocritical, greedy, corrupt and luxury loving as those in other countries. Plus one of the factions in that country would be quite happy to drive the proverbial bus over another one if the latter is seen as responsible for bad decisions.
3. The youth in Iran are highly westernized and not interested in maintaining the current status quo. They are far more concerned in their jobs prospects, ability to buy houses and nice cars, take vacations etc. Even their fertility rates are sub-replacement and similar to European countries. Iran is not likely to become more religious or nationalistic unless it is attacked first.
Part of the reasons behind the current sabre rattling by Iran’s current leaders is that any conflict, tension or sanctions allows them to maintain their weakening grip on political power. Plus it does wonders for their revenue by pushing up the price of crude oil. Therefore the quickest way to screw over the current regime in Iran is to decrease the tensions and rhetoric, such that they have no real issues to justify their existence.
Now ask yourself..
Isn’t letting Iran build nukes the best way to destabilize their current leadership.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you know, I often think on a big scale. Consider this posts to be another one in that line. Today I am going to talk about a type of geo-engineering that is both feasible and revolutionary.
Destroying parts of the Isthmus of Panama such to create a connection between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean that is at least 5 km wide and 1 km deep.
As some of you might know- we already have a small connection between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans through Panama called the Panama Canal. It is however too small and meant for allowing the passage of ships rather than allow the tow oceans to mix near the equator and change ocean circulation.
So how did I come up with this somewhat bizarre sounding idea? Well, as you know I have a broad series of interests in everything from weapons to geology and that led me, years ago, to something that most of you might not know about the Isthmus of Panama.
The land at its narrowest part of the isthmus is rather new on a geological time scale and was fully formed only about 3 million years ago. Prior to that the Atlantic Ocean was connected to the Pacific Ocean at both the equator and the poles. Consequently the circulation of water and currents in the world’s oceans were quite different from today. To make a long story short, the earth was much more warmer, wetter and greener than today.
Prior to the final closure of the gap between North and South America about 3 million years ago, ice ages did not occur. In fact ice ages as we know them today started around 2.6 million years ago. Similarly whales were plentiful even in tropical oceans and the main food item for large sharks such as the Megalodon who also flourished in those waters. Similarly there used to be forests in parts of Antarctica as recently as 3 million year ago. Even the Sahara desert was rather green before the beginning of the recent ice ages caused it to periodically transform into a desert.
The gist of what I am saying is that the formation of the Isthmus of Panama (especially its final closure) made the world drier, colder and susceptible to periodic ice ages. While you can partially explain ice ages by plotting long-term periodicities in the earths orbit around the sun- people cannot explain why these orbital peculiarities did not cause ice ages until the Isthmus of Panama finally closed up.
So how can we reopen the connection between the Pacific and the Atlantic? There are many options to do so.. however I prefer doing so with using low-fallout thermonuclear weapons. Why spend decades digging when you can do in a few minutes with properly placed high-yield and low fallout thermonuclear devices? A few dozen of these babies could easily create a canal about 5 km wide by 1 km deep and about 80 km long. In any case- the areas such canals would go through are almost inhabited due to the climate, topography and dense jungle growth.
The technology to do what I am suggesting is tried and tested, and the high-yield devices could easily be built from currently available nuclear weapons components. While there might be some complications such as relocating people in Panama, the increased productivity of the biosphere in other parts of the world would be many hundreds of times larger that destroyed to recreate the Atlantic-pacific connection.
What do you think? Comments?
Update: Have a look at this link. Basically my idea but on a much smaller scale.
Some of you might have heard about Jared Diamond whose most famous book Guns, Germs, and Steel is widely reviled by right wingers for describing how the rise and changing fortunes of various people was based on luck rather than any innate ability. One of his more famous assertions is that agriculture was the worst mistake in the history of the human race. While I partially agree with him on that and some of his other controversial claims, the reality is that we cannot go back- even if we wanted to do so.
But this post is not about why agriculture was a mistake. Instead I will write about how agriculture lead to societies dominated and run by sociopaths.
Many colonial and genocidal whites in previous centuries often wrote about how primitive hunter-gatherers were too trusting and naive. Whites saw this behavior as evidence of their racial inferiority. I see it differently..
First imagine that you were part of a stone age or early bronze age hunter-gatherer or pre-settled agricultural group. As many of you know this lifestyle was both risky as well as rewarding in ways that most “civilized” people cannot comprehend. On one hand- your health was much better (almost not infectious diseases- except through injury or exposure), food was good and pretty abundant and you had lots of free time. on the other hand- lethal fights and small-scale skirmishes with members of other tribes were common. But it was not a bad existence- as most of the humans and pre-human hominids lived that lifestyle since Australopithecines walked upright in Africa about 3-4 million years ago. The very fact that humans exist today is a testament to the ability of hunter-gatherers to survive and overcome odds over millions of years and changing climatic conditions.
Have you ever wondered about the social organisations of such groups of pre-humans and humans? While some of you might think that wolves or chimpanzees are a good surrogate proxy for hominid behavior- the reality might surprise you.
Rigid social hierarchies, such as those seen in wolves, lions, baboons or even chimpanzees have never been recorded nor observed in hunter-gatherer societies. While this finding might appear odd, it makes a lot of sense if you looked at the world through the eyes of a hunter-gatherer.
Human beings are not physically as tough as most animals of their size. We could not win in a one-on-one match against an angry rhesus monkey, let alone a wolf or a hyena. Yet somehow humans (and pre-humans) were able to evolve, hunt animals, spread across the world and become a successful species. So what made us successful?
Could it be a very high degree of co-operation?
Some of you might say that the same could be said about wolves, hyenas, lions and chimpanzees. There is however one important difference between those species and hominids. Our loyalty to the group over any significant length of time is not based on instinct, smell or even who we were born to.
Real long-term loyalty to groups in humans is based on observable reciprocity.
To put it another way, hunter-gatherer communities were and are remarkably egalitarian. It also helps that they could not store, hoard or accumulate food. As the group’s size rarely exceeded a few hundred, individuals who were slick nonreciprocating CONmen died in hunting ‘accidents’. Hunter-gatherers were therefore remarkably free of the power-hungry sociopaths.
Agriculture changed that.. The subsequent concentration of food, power and status allowed power-hungry sociopaths who might have died in hunting ‘accidents’ to thrive and lead such societies. Initially natural limits imposed by the size of their fiefdoms and exposure to the same risks as their fellow group members mitigated their ability to go nuts. However the rise of the first kingdoms allowed the ruling sociopaths to disengage themselves from the fate of their people such that they did not suffer for the consequences of their actions and mistakes.
Since then, actions of the ruling class and their flunkies have always been were driven by their own ego, megalomania, cruelty, stupidity and relative freedom from the consequences of their mistakes.
It goes without saying that the rise of sociopaths also changed the societies they ruled. The people they ruled also became far more duplicitous, phony and underhanded. Asian and European societies, civilizations and mores should then be seen as the end result of the rise of sociopaths to power. It is therefore not surprising that they found hunter-gatherers in the Americas, Africa and Australia to be too naive, trusting and easy to kill, swindle and enslave.
I would go so far as to say that the history of the “civilized” world makes perfect sense once you accept the possibility that those at top of tall ‘hierarchies’ are always sociopaths. A vast array of things from CONservatism, inequality, rituals, religions, socio-economic institutions and general social attitudes in “civilized” societies are all linked to ‘tall’ hierarchies run by sociopaths.
What do you think? Comments?
I am currently writing about how even a perfect hierarchy that is ‘too’ tall is doomed to become unstable over any lengthy period of time (more than a decade). A good into to this topic is the concept of back seat driving.
A backseat driver is a vehicle passenger in the back seat who is not controlling the vehicle, and seems to be uncomfortable with the skills of the driver and/or wants to tutor the driver while the driver is at the wheel.
So why is back seat driving so problematic? Apart from the fact that it often useless drivel which distracts the driver and degrades his or her performance, even a perfect back-seat driver is not actually manipulating the controls of the car. This creates a feedback loop lag which results in a buildup of errors which will eventually cause an accident.
But let us tackle the human issues first. If the backseat driver was the better driver why is he or she not driving the car in the first place? The answer is- incompetence. That is right! The backseat driver is a back-seat driver because they are less competent than the person driving the vehicle.
Now you might think that we would identify and ignore backseat drivers in other areas of life, but the converse is true- with disastrous effects for everyone else. Here are some examples..
Take the catholic Church, or more accurately its priesthood. Given that a lot of catholic doctrine revolves around sex and sin, isn’t having celibate priests kinda stupid? Do you really want a person who has supposedly never been in those situations be seen as an authority on how to behave in them? I can however understand if catholic priests are consulted on things like being self-hating closeted gays or child molesters.
Take decision makers in modern militaries. How many of them have actually fought in a war similar to the one they are running? and how many of them have actually been in the shoes of the men they command within the last decade? The answer is- almost none of these decision makers got their current positions because of real merit or experience. They were just good at kissing the right asses and saving their own behinds from actual combat.
and what about CEOs and the senior management of companies today? How many of them have actually been involved with the company they run or understand the products or services the company provides? Most likely they are hacks born to the right parents or with the requisite amount of sociopathy to succeed in the corporate world. They lack the ability to understand what they are really doing.. yet Americans and people in most developed countries celebrate such hollow CONmen.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Female Playground Flashers: Mar 4, 2012- Society finds women doing this cute and forgivable.
Tea Bagging: Mar 8, 2012- Amateurs showing their love for the neglected twins..
We often tend to believe that something labelled ‘evil’ is somehow fundamentally different from what is widely considered to be ‘good’. However categorization based on widespread social beliefs rather than rationality result in a lot of cognitive dissonance. I will highlight this with by looking at the ubiquity of the “Nuremberg Defense” (Superior Orders) in contemporary society.
Superior orders (often known as the Nuremberg defense or lawful orders) is a plea in a court of law that a soldier not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior office. The superior orders plea is similar to the doctrine of respondeat superior in tort law where a superior is held liable for the actions of a subordinate, and the subordinate may escape liability.
So how widespread is this issue in contemporary society? Let me give you a few examples..
1. Consider the ‘war on drugs’. As some of you might know, it is not really about drugs or protecting society but a white reaction to civil rights legislation passed in the 1960s. Today it supports a huge ‘justice-prison-police-legalized thuggery’ complex which has revenues in the hundreds of billions and probably employs a few percent of the American population. To the rational outsider and many insiders it is obvious that the ‘war on drugs’ has failed to reduce either the availability, cost or quality of drugs. But have you ever wondered how those who benefit from this futile and misguided war perceive it or, more importantly, themselves?
The vast majority of those who are employed in the ‘justice-prison-police-legalized thuggery’ complex see it as just another job REGARDLESS of the negative impact on the lives of others. They see quite happy and enthusiastic to accidentally kill innocent people, entrap people, treat non-whites like crap, destroy their lives and otherwise act in a manner that is functionally equivalent to those who served the Third Reich.
“but is all right because we are just doing a good job by following orders from above”.
2. A lot of white westerners poke fun at or condemn the efforts of “foreign tyrants” to encourage personality cults to control their populations. They frequently criticize people in the educational system of those countries as weak-willed, lame or stupid. Meanwhile the educational systems of western countries are now full of legislation against behaviors which were once considered normal to the extent that normal childhood has been criminalized. Then there is the issue of whether these systems teach anything of value to kids.
Once again, it is obvious to rational observers that the educational system of western countries have fundamentally failed those they were supposed to help, those who benefit from its existence see it differently. They frequently advertise themselves as decent hardworking people who are selflessly working in best interest of kids. Apparently the ongoing massive increase in childhood problems such as poor literacy, obesity, ADHD and a myriad of diagnosed mental issues are not their fault.. because they are always right. Have you ever wondered about what is going through their little heads as they make those claims in the face of evidence to the contrary?
“but is all right because we are just doing a good job by following orders from above.”
I could give you many more examples using occupations ranging from physicians and professors to soldiers or average government employee. But it is always the same..
“we are just doing a good job by following orders from above.”
What do you think? Comments?