It seem that cannibalism is now a hot topic in north america. We had two highly publicized incidents of this phenomena in this week alone- one involved a guy eating a live human being and another apparently involves a guy killing and then eating another person.
Anyway, the video of that incident was apparently posted on Best Gore before the body parts started popping up in the mail. Since the video is a bit too long (almost 10 minutes), I will post a now famous screenshot from that clip. Don’t forget to read part of the description from that particular webpost below the picture.
The 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick Video is filmed in a dimply lit room. A naked male is seen tied to a frame of bed while his captor stabs him in the abdomen with an ice pick. The victim is them seen with his throat slashed as his captor proceeds to slowly slice various parts of his body with a knife. Later in the video, the victim is entirely decapitated and the captor uses his kitchen knife to cut into the muscles and dismember one limb after another. The murderer plays with severed limbs and even rubs his crotch area with them. It must have turned him on because the next thing he does is flip the dismembered, decapitated corpse on its front and fuck it in the ass from behind. Using a knife and fork, the murderer then slices a piece of fatty flesh from victim’s ass and presumably eats it before bringing a hungry dog in to also feast on freshly killed man. The black and white pooch could not resist the smell of raw flesh and bit right into the stump. Once pooch was done, the murderer stuck a bottle neck up dismembered man’s anus and repeatedly assfucked him with it. Putting the severed hand into use once more, the murderer laid on his bed pantless and masturbated with it.
Did I mention that Luka Magnotta also liked to torture and kill cats? Here is the proof.
What do you think? Comments?
The effort that humans routinely put into deluding themselves has never ceased to amaze me. Consider the following as a cautionary example of what the human “mind” can come up with. You must have heard numerous people say something long the following lines..
Guy X used to chase many women when he was younger. But you cannot keep on chasing them as you age and sexual desire decreases blah.. blah.. hormones blah.. blah.. So he started settling down. blah.. blah.. Now he is kinda happy. blah.. blah..
While the above mentioned meta-story might seem reasonable it is anything but that. I could attack it on many levels, but I prefer to start by stabbing at the heart of this narrative. In case you did not realize, the meta-story is meant to CON listeners or readers into believing that.
1. Phenomena reflect the natural order or patterns of nature.
2. Behavioral patterns remain constant, regardless of changes in the external environment.
3. People change for the better, and become nicer human beings, as they age.
Do you see the rational deficiencies inherent in these beliefs? Let us dissect them, starting with belief # 1 aka the ‘natural patterns’ fallacy.
As I have said in many of my previous posts, nothing in the universe is natural or unnatural. If it is feasible, it will happen and the only question then is – how often (probability). Multi-cellular organisms recognizable to us have been around for barely 500 million years. So are the plants and animals around us ‘natural’? Saying that anything is reflective of any ‘order’ or ‘pattern’ in nature is the secular version of belief in a god aka religion. No overarching super-human entity or force drives human to form relationships, create functional societies or even exist. They happen because they can happen under a given set of conditions. Furthermore, these complex systems are dependent on external conditions- some of which are influenced by internal feedback.
Whether people form long-term relationships, act cooperatively in reasonably functional societies or even want to keep on living depends on a complex and changing matrix of options and possibilities. Let us not forget that those who are old today grew up in a world that was rather different from the one we now inhabit. Their formative years and life trajectories were influenced by a different set of options, resources and possibilities. What seems ‘natural’, and ‘inevitable’ to them is often neither.
I am not implying that we have conquered aging, death or the desire for human company. My suggestion is that the nature, context, experience and possibility matrix for all of the above has changed to such an extent that extrapolations based on an older world are unreliable. For example- we now have easily available drugs for impotence, inexpensive testosterone supplements, weight training, careers that do not prematurely wear down the body, relatively inexpensive and relatively safe prostitution (in most of the developed world), ubiquitous high-quality porn and person-to-person connectivity that transcends time zones and national boundaries. At the same time, we have a society that is increasingly impersonal, uncaring, adversarial and does not offer the type of benefits which were once considered necessary to get people to care about its continued existence.
We must also question the assumption that people “change for the better, and become nicer human beings, as they age”. How many people really become “better”,”nicer”,”more humane” or “less greedy” as they age? Doesn’t experience suggest that the converse is true? Older people are generally far more selfish, untruthful, greedy and delusional than their younger counterparts. Most older people have less of whatever ‘positive’ qualities they once had. This is especially true for women who desperately cling to anything that allows them to retain some relevance and attention. The majority of women become increasingly insufferable and demanding as they age. Yes, there are exceptions to what I just said, but they are just that- exceptions.
The question you have to ask yourself is-
Given what we know about the general direction of incentives, individual capabilities and options- Is it reasonable to expect that young men today will “settle down” in semi-dysfunctional relationships as they age- even if they wanted to do so. A related question is whether the young women of today will become “better human beings” as they age.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Sitting Profiles: May 26, 2012 – Ya.. they are all kinda sitting, as far ass I am concerned.
Cheeky Cuties: May 26, 2012 – Want to pinch, squeeze and spank their curvy behinds?
Bottoms Up: May 26, 2012 – Ass the title says.
Soapy Cuties: May 26, 2012 – Clean bodies make for clean thoughts.
It is somewhat ironic that his public stance about the use and legality of marijuana is so diametrically opposed to what he used to do in his teens. Here is another one..
What do you think? Comments?
Americans in particular, and West-Europeans in general, pride themselves on their so-called ‘work ethic’. It is supposedly an important reason behind their prosperity. Now I could easily make the case that genocide, enslavement and looting of others were (and still are) the major factors behind western prosperity- but that is not the focus of this post. Instead I will show you how this supposedly superior ‘work ethic’ is a rather bizarre and pathological ideology. Let us begin by asking a simple question-
What do most people actually get out of diligent hard work?
Remember that I am not asking you what you are supposed to get out of it or what you should get out of it- theory and empty promises are not the same as real life outcomes. Religions are supposed to lead to enlightenment, peace and happiness. Eating more whole grains instead of fats is supposed to help people lose weight and become healthier.
So.. let me repeat my question- What do most people actually get out of diligent work? and is it really what they want? You can invoke the writings of any dead white man or talk yourself blue but the unpleasant fact is that diligent hard work by the dupe majority only serves to enrich a few. Did I mention that the dupe majority also assume all of the risks and take the bulk of losses.
Historically, hard work has seldom benefited those who actually did it- even indirectly. Only in the last 60 odd years has there been even a vague connection between diligent hard work and rewards.
Therefore we must conclude that all of those whites who slaved away from whenever till after WW2 were willing slaves. They were stupid enough to justify and celebrate their own exploitation slaving away at something that would not benefit them, their kids, grand-kids… well you get the picture. It is interesting to note that Blacks and Hispanics never had the same childish beliefs about the true nature of the society around them. Even events such as WW1 and WW2 show that most whites were stupid enough to enthusiastically fight and die for causes and institutions which treated them like so much cannon fodder.
But back to the main focus of this post- What does hard work achieve? Why do people work hard or at least pretend to do so? If you think about it, hard work is not (and never was) about doing something useful or beneficial. It is about dull people and willing slaves demonstrating their loyalty to his masters- for a few more scraps from the table. It is this particular disconnectedness of the willingness to work and its purpose that make it a cancerous ideology.
Here is a simple example that will help you understand my point. Let us say I decided to pay a majority of people in a group to torture and kill each others children. Would they do it? In most cultures and societies, they might take the money and maybe pretend to do it, or just forget to do it. Americans, and other assorted west-European morons, are “special” in that they will gladly torture and kill each others kids and then go on to use evidence of their deeds to claim competence and ask for some more money. Most americans, and west-Europeans, lack the ability to actually think through beyond the immediate consequences of their actions. They along with east-Asians are largely incapable to seeing the big picture. I believe that the majority of west-European and east-Asian people lack a theory of mind. Such an aspergy mind is helpful for short-term gains, kinda like cancerous cells demonstrate excellent growth and innovative work arounds the bodies defense mechanisms.
So-called “hard” work that lacks a socially useful component is rather like relentless cellular growth with consideration of its effect on the organism.They are very successful in the short-term, but at the cost of their chances for long-term survival. Social atomization only makes it worse and you end up with a society containing 300 million cancers- if you get my point.
What do you think? Comments?
People of a limited intellectual capacity, aka CONservatives, like to believe in a number of solipsistic myths. One of them is the rather bizarre belief that ethnic homogeneity is the key to prosperity, peace and stability. Let me begin with a simple question-
Where is the historical evidence linking ethnic homogeneity to prosperity, peace or any other form of positive stability?
As I have repeatedly said, in many of my previous posts, civilization has a rather poor record of improving the living standards of most human beings. I cannot think of any era, except the last 60-odd years, when the living standard of the median person in any civilization exceeded that of nomadic hunter gatherers. Feel free to point out evidence that this was not the case.
However the majority of ‘nations’ that ever existed was functionally mono-ethnic and the few poly-ethnic ‘nations’ in history, such as the roman or mongol empire, were exceptions rather than the rule. So why were mono-ethnic ‘nations’ from ancient Egyptian kingdoms to Victorian England unable to provide widespread prosperity, peace and stability for the median person. Can you seriously say that all of the shit, dirt and poverty in Victorian England was due to “darkies”? How was present day Australia populated? What about the extreme poverty in pre-20th century Scandinavia? Ever wonder why there are so many people of Swedish descent in Minnesota? and why did people with almost identical ancestries keep on fighting wars which killed millions of people? What part of the problems in Russia (post-1917 civil war, Stalin’s genocides, WW2) during the last 100 years was due by ethnic non-homogeneity? What part of the deaths and misery caused by Mao`s cultural revolution was due to ethnic non-homogeneity?
What percentage of the serious problems, wars, genocides and other forms of extreme misery faced by western ‘nations’ in the past few hundred years were due by ethnic non-homogeneity?
What do you think? Comments?
I have recently seen a few pictures based around the concept that the USA increasingly resembles a totalitarian repressive state than something close to any form of representative government. Here are two examples.
What do you think? Comments?
An exploration of the LJBF syndrome- from an episode of the family guy.
One of the more common pieces of advice given to married, and unmarried, couples who are experiencing trouble in their relationshits is that they should “schedule” intimacy and reserve some “couple” time for themselves. Such actions are supposed to rekindle the “spark” in the relationship- whatever that is. Now, am I the only one who finds this advice bizarre and a sad reflection on the world we live in?
Do you schedule eating time to renew your relationship with food? Do you schedule sleeping time to renew your relationship with a good nights sleep? Do you schedule a visit to the ER to renew your relationship with the hospital? In all of the above mentioned examples, your actions are based on a response to a need- whether it is hunger, lack of sufficient sleep or prompt medical attention.
If you are scheduling something, it is almost guaranteed to be a chore.
Taking your garbage out on time, vacuuming your house regularly or doing laundry on a schedule is a chore not a need. We are talking about stuff that nobody really wants to do, or is strictly necessary at that moment, but performed for satisfying imaginary social expectations.
So why is the relationship between most couples far more similar to a chore than a need?
People throughout human history have formed couples for important reasons such as reasonably regular access to sex, sharing resources to raise kids, take care of each other through thick and thin etc. At least that is how it should be. But is it still like that? and if not, why not?
Why are relationships in developed countries so dysfunctional that couples have to schedule time to be nice to each other and masturbate into each other?
To understand how we reached this level, if you can call it that, it is necessary to explore the path that led us here. It begins with basing your society on ideals, rules and customs that are not quite human. To be more precise- monogamy (serial or non-serial) as we know it today, just does not fit in with human nature. While men and women can be interested in one person for most of the time, it is delusional to think that they will not want some action on the side. Almost every single society with formal legalized marriage either decries such behavior or accepts it only on an ‘underground’ level. In some ways, legal recognition of couple formation is first step towards making it shitty. However it is not a major contributor to the process.
The second part of road to relationshit hell step is due to the overall result of social busybodies try to make the relationships of others fit inside defined moulds. Trying to fit humans into preexisting moulds of anything is a bad idea. Whether it is education, clothes, jobs or entertainment, one (or even a few) sizes won’t fit all- nor is it even necessary to do so.
If you make something enjoyable into a routine without flexibility or accommodation, don’t be surprised if the participants lose interest and stop caring.
The third stretch of the road towards dystopic relationships is a combination of the effects of feminism and social atomization. While women have rarely married guys they were really attracted to in the past, they were usually discreet about it. Today, they don’t have to be discreet about how much they really hate the wimp they are married to because they can get away wit it- heck, it is actually quite profitable to do so. Plus every social institution stands behind then and eggs them on to screw over or abuse the wimp in their life- because as we all know “She could do much better”. Now combine that with social atomization and a multitude of sexual partners before “marriage” (or a ‘real’ LTR) and you have a person who has no real interest or impulse to be willingly “intimate” in a relationship longer than a few months.
Women often criticize prostitutes for not being ‘real’ substitutes for relationships with women. The reality is that ‘real’ women are shitty, expensive and troublesome substitutes for prostitutes. Wives and girlfriends routinely get way with attitudes and behavior that prostitutes would not dare attempt. But then again, I am the guy who prefers whores over ‘real’ women. Maybe scheduling a gynecological appointment.. I mean intimacy.. with you SO would rekindle the spark in your relationshit.
What do you think? Comments?
My view of the world is grounded in percentages, probabilities and dispassionate observations rather than just trying to see patterns which validate my beliefs. Consequently I am willing to consider possibilities that most people might find ‘depressing’ and ‘negative’. Here is one of my predictions, based on a few years of observation-
A form of MGTOW, rather than “game”, will be the predominant response of men to the current dystopic sexual environment.
I am fully aware that most men believe that the MGTOW option involves a celibate to semi-celibate hermit like existence on the fringes of society. In my opinion, the popular image of MGTOW is due to the disproportionate web presence of its most zealotic and ‘ideologically-pure’ followers. The reality for most men is going to be far more different. But let us first understand why “game” is unlikely to be anything more than a minority option. Many of you believe that most men won’t succeed at “game” because they are not “good enough”, interested enough, have low testosterone or whatever bullshit you can dredge up. I see a much bigger and far more fundamental problem-
Even pretty, sexually skilled and otherwise reasonable women are not much fun to be around after you have finished having sex with them.
Did you get it? Over the long-term, the value of a woman around your own age is largely proportional to her looks and sexual availability. As almost every one of you know, those things don’t improve as a woman goes past her mid-20s. In previous era, the effect of this factor was largely mitigated by considerations such as children, mortgages, social expectations etc. However that is no longer the case.
Since most younger men today do not go down that path in their early to mid-20s, they have no sunken investment in maintaining relationships with women they don’t care much about. The converse is also true as most women no longer require the co-operation of men to raise a child or two. Therefore both sexes have a far more cynical view of each other- something that is greatly facilitated by the socio-cultural mores of our times.
The relationship between men and women today is therefore far more like an adversarial business partnership. Both parties are far more interested in screwing each other over than playing nice to achieve a common good.
In my opinion, old-fashioned relationships are dying out because men are increasingly becoming aware of the poor cost/benefit ratio and low probability of “success”. Now combine with awareness with the mediocre looks and sexual skills of the median women in an age of high quality, ambient and free porn. There is little or no incentive for the median guy to chase after the median girl.
Now this does not mean that men will prefer porn over sex with all women. I certainly would never pass an opportunity, paid or otherwise, to bang the living daylights out of a hot chick. But it is also extremely unlikely that I will invest significant time, or effort, in a mediocre girl. Nor would I work my ass off to make enough money to keep any women “happy” or satisfy any older social expectations about men of my age.
Why care about people and institutions who have abandoned you?
I would rather spend my time living well. That means not working hard, eating and drinking well, buying sex, fapping to porn and doing what I really enjoy. Isn’t it closer to MGTOW rather than “game”?
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
The original MILF song..
You might have noticed that CONservatives and LIEbertarians constantly refer to certain books as if they were some sort of semi-divine gospel. I would go so far as to say that some books such as Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged‘, Charles Murray’s ‘The Bell Curve and Friedrich Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom‘ are literary masturbatory aids for people with certain world views.
“Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World” by Gregory Clark is one such, somewhat recent, addition to that cannon of masturbatory material. The main thesis of this book is that somehow the “super intelligent” and “well-bred” children of the “totally meritocratic” rich had to take menial jobs left vacant by the death of the “undeserving” poor whose kids died because of a Malthusian struggle for the basics of life such as food and shelter. He then makes some noise about the rise of a different type of man.. a homo economics, who was willing to diligently slave away for shit wages and crappy lifestyle for the high-minded purpose of building a civilization because of the superior genes for intelligence inherited from his illustrious noble ancestry. Ya.. it appears pretty ridiculous when you look at it in perspective, doesn’t it?
CONservatives and LIEbertarians loved the book, because it suggested that they might be the descended from “deserving” and “smart” aristocrats than stupid proles. Of course, tracing the ancestry of prominent families would reveal that their founders were always some lucky proles rather than some super-human ‘John Galt’ types- but why spoil a good fantasy. But back to the book itself..
The idea that people with more money and resources might have more children who lived to adulthood is not new. Infact I would argue that it was universal in the pre-contraception era across all organized civilizations. But somehow it did not seem to have any effect in other cultures- from China and Japan to India and pre-colombian Meso-America.
Furthermore, it did not have an effect in European populations before the 17th century.
Think about it.. the conditions in Europe from the beginning of the dark ages (4-5th century AD) to the 17th century AD were pretty dire. While there were periods of good weather and general plenty- there were also large blocks of time when the weather was shitty, starvation was rampant, bloody wars were frequent and diseases killed millions of people. I would argue that the median conditions, social customs and conventions did not change much over 10 centuries- from the 4th to the 14th century AD. The first real changes in Europe occur in the 1400s and 1500s, when a combination of simple, but profound, technological advancements such as the printing press and gunpowder weapons changed the palate of options for the people in those countries. But that was still not enough to jump-start the industrial revolution. So what changed by the 17th and 18th centuries that finally did it? Remember that science, technology and institutions do not develop unless there is a plausible need for them.
What was the ‘need’ that made developing them worthwhile?
Is it a mere coincidence that the late 17th to early 18th century was also the era when the west was finally able to steal gold, land and resources from many other parts of the world? While the Spanish had been stealing gold from south and central America for over a century, their spending patterns and economic system meant that the new gold quickly ended up in the hands of those who built stuff and provided services for them. By the time countries like England and France entered the colonialism game in earnest- all the easy gold was gone. Therefore their colonial enterprises were based on enslaving people to work on stolen land to harvest resources for producing something that could be sold at profit to some other sucker. Alternatively the products could be used to expand their empires to enslave more people for more free labor and resources.
The industrial revolution did not start as an altruistic and noble endeavor to uplift mankind. It was about finding better ways to rob, steal, enslave and murder for profit.
It therefore started in those parts of the world that were in the best position to do so. By the late 17th century, Spain and Portugal were ‘have-beens’ whose socio-economic systems were still mentally stuck in a more primitive and direct form of mercantilism. Other parts of the world such as China, Japan, India were too rooted in their ancient ways and mindsets to change. Countries in North-Western Europe were pretty much the only players in the game and they had the right level of technology at the right time in history to take the lead and run with it. Furthermore they were young enough to not have the cultural sclerosis that had afflicted Asian civilizations, since like forever.
The willingness of north-west Europeans to play nice with their fellow countrymen during the industrial revolution was linked to opportunities to steal, rob, enslave and murder ‘other’ people for a feasible shot at making it. The development of institutions and mores that made the industrial revolution possible and successful was also largely due to the willingness of people to take some shit for a lottery ticket to riches. Given that they lacked other options to improve their lives, it was quite rational. In any case, it did pay off for a moderate percentage of people.
The question that CONservatives and LIEbertarians must ask is- Would the first phase of the industrial revolution have occurred if there were no new lands to plunder, people to enslave and resources to extract? While the later phases of the industrial revolution have benefited humanity as a whole, it most certainly did not start out that way.
What do you think? Comments?
While I do have a generally nihilistic view about life, some things stick out as more worthless than others. Highly organized civilizations are something that I have always found to be particularly undeserving of continued existence. Many of you might find that idea odd because you have been brainwashed into believing that highly organized civilizations are the greatest accomplishment of mankind.
But are they? and by what criteria?
If we consider everything that we now know about the condition of the average person throughout human history and prehistory- one thing becomes rather clear. With the possible exception of the post-WW2 era, civilization has been an unmitigated disaster as far as the median person is concerned. I would go so far as to say that with the probable exception of a tiny percentage of people, civilization fucked it up for everybody else.
Don’t believe me? Consider the objective facts. If we look at the skeletons of pre-historic humans, especially hunter gatherers, it is quite clear that they had a pretty good life, few infectious diseases and a pretty good diet. Civilized humans did not achieve the same body size, relative freedom from infectious diseases and generally physically undemanding lifestyle till a decade after WW2. Therefore by the most basic criteria of human welfare, civilization has been a grand failure.
But why stop at physical evidence alone? Consider the shitty lifestyle of the majority of humans throughout most of human history. Most people worked from dusk to dawn in physically demanding and repetitive jobs just to scrape by. Do you think that farming and livestock rearing was fun? What about endless constructions of, often useless, fortifications to keep those ‘invaders’ out? Fancy fighting wars for causes that will never benefit you? Do you like worshiping gods and demons who don’t seem to care about you anyway? What about priests, prophets and “saints” who promise a lot but can’t deliver shit. Life for the vast majority of people in all civilizations was about lifelong hard labor that rarely benefited them, sacrificing for people who did not give a shit about them and believing in ideas that did not improve the quality of their life. There was no significant difference in the quality of life of a peasant in Egypt circa 3,000 BC and average guy in mid-19th century London.
Isn’t it odd that civilization could not deliver any worthwhile improvement in lifestyle for the majority of humans until the last 100-odd years? Why not? Doesn’t civilization always advertize itself as concerned with the betterment of humanity and progress? Isn’t there something fundamentally dishonest about a system that repeatedly delivers the opposite of what it promises?
In my opinion, highly organized and long-lived civilizations are the worst offenders in this regard. What did greco-roman civilization really deliver to its unwitting followers? What has Chinese civilization really done for its followers? How has Indian civilization made the life of the average Indian better? Didn’t western civilization only start delivering in the aftermath of WW1 and WW2?
The unpleasant truth is that civilization, as we know it, is incapable of making the life of an average person better. It is, if anything, a hindrance to making the life of such people better as most of what you call civilization is essentially a series of endless zero sum games involving continual strife, conflict, lies and bullshit. Nobody wins in the end, as even the so-called “winners” pay a much higher cost for their lifestyle than they otherwise would have.
Civilization, as we know it, is a disease.
What do you think? Comments?
Economics is known as the dismal “science” because it lacks significant predictive value. The various schools of economics are closer to different flavors of solipsism than most people realize. Unfortunately, most people still like to base their world view around different schools of solipsism.. I mean economics. This post will explore the effect of one particularly insidious concept that is found in many schools of economic thinking- austerity.
Many others (do a google search) have previously written about the inherent irrationality, short sightedness and plain stupidity of austerity. However almost nobody seems to have written about the striking parallels between economic austerity and voluntary anorexia in women. Let me list the uncanny similarities between the two apparently diverse behaviors.
Austerity is a concept rooted in classical/ neo-classical economic worldviews and involves an attempt to move the system towards a more “ideal” form. Anorexia also starts with the goal of reshaping the body towards something closer to the “ideal” form. Note that the end goals of both austerity and anorexia are always poorly defined and constantly shifting. Similarly the purported benefits of austerity and anorexia are based in faith and belief, rather than objective reality.
Both austerity and anorexia try to justify themselves through vague rationalizations and strawman-type arguments which just don’t hold up to closer scrutiny. While austerity claims that cutting “spending” to match “income” results in a more “balanced” economy, it is suspiciously silent on how cutting spending in an economy improves its “balance” either in the short or medium term- let alone the long term. Proponents of austerity also prefer to avoid addressing issues relating to a persistent fall in tax revenues due to reduction in amount of economic activity throughout the system. They also avoid any discussion about the role of existing institutions, mores and laws in creating the problems in the first place.
Those who justify anorexic behavior also make vague claims about attractiveness, social pressures, rates of obesity and the deleterious effects of excessive food intake. They however have also have problems reconciling their beliefs with reality- as the attractiveness of females has a much better correlation with not being obese rather than being underweight. It is no coincidence that the women that men lust after are usually young, healthy, fit and non-obese rather than rail-thin malnourished hags. Which brings us to the next similarity between the two.
Austerity is starvation of the economy and anorexia is starvation of the body. They are not fine tools to carefully craft a desired end, but incredibly blunt instruments that cannot possibly do what they claim. Starvation of the economy does not improve its function any more than starvation of the body can improve its function. There is a huge difference between methodically altering the flow of money in a system to improve it and simply cutting in a politically expedient manner. Similarly a woman can lose excess weight and keep it of much better by cutting carbs, eating more protein and fat in addition to putting on a bit more muscle.
Austerity creates popular unrest, loss of social cohesion and a general, and often irreversible, breakdown of the system. Anorexia causes binge eating, secondary health problems and a general, and often irreversible, breakdown of the body. Ironically when either austerity and anorexia fail to deliver what they had promised, its proponents double down and call for more of the same rather than admit their failure.
What do you think? Comments?