Over the years, sophists have used numerous arguments to justify slavery and indentured labor. These have been traditionally based in some mixture of custom, religion and ‘morality’. But there is an underlying pattern which can be summed up as-
We deserve much more than you because we are somehow ‘special’ and ‘better’ than you.
The factors that supposedly make them ‘special’ and ‘better’ range from the barely plausible ones such as ‘genetics’, ‘sexual morals’, ‘work habits’ to ‘god talks to me’ or ‘god appointed me’. Now it should be obvious to most readers that these are just cover stories for justifying fortunes obtained through some combination of scam, fraud, luck or chance- mostly luck and chance. In any case, the modus operandi of rich in every human society is similar to a cancerous tumor in humans and they do not willingly create new wealth.
But enough about them.. Let us now talk about how people who are NOT rich justify income and wealth inequality. But why do they have to do that in first place? Well, it goes something like this.. Humans, irrespective of their so-called “IQ” levels, are largely incapable of being honest and objective to themselves- let alone others. This willingnes to delude themselves plays out both at the personal and group level.
Therefore people, especially clever ones, try to invent all sort of reasonable sounding justifications for the indefensible.
But why spend so much time and effort finding ever more complex ways self-deluding yourself than face the obvious? It comes down to a combination of cowardice and fake hope. The very act of accepting that there is something wrong with the world almost necessitates you to do something about it. However doing so entails the risk of acting by yourself and losing out on peer acceptance, a “normal” life or “some sweet deal in the future”. Of course, none of those things matter in the world we live in- anymore. Peer acceptance is worthless, a “normal” life is slavery and that “sweet deal in the future” isn’t going to really happen.
So why do people believe in the work ethic and slave for the enrichment of others? Why would these people practice delayed gratification when their masters are clearly not practicing what they preach? Do you think billionaires become and remain rich by working hard? What about multi-millionaires? and what do they do anyway? Give me one example of a rich person whose wealth is not derived from rent-seeking scams based on regulatory capture or professions that “self-regulate” themselves. Come on.. I dare you! But the average person still ‘seems’ to believe that working hard makes one rich. We could certainly hypothesize that the average person is too retarded to appreciate that he or she is being scammed, robbed and abused. There is however an alternate, and far more cynical, explanation.
The rich try to scam the upper middle-class with the whole ‘work hard and get rich’ scam who then push it on the middle class who try to pass it on to the working class who then pile it onto the working poor and so on. Only the retarded and naive believe in it.
The rest are engaged in a pathetic game of displaying fake solidarity and providing lip service to something they don’t really believe in. Of course everybody involved in the scam tries their best to pretend that it is not a scam. To achieve this everyone pretends to work hard and perform some token sacrifices to show that they are true believers. The only problem is that the token sacrifices increase greatly as you go down the socio-economic scale such that pretty much everyone below upper-middle class makes sacrifices that are larger than any potential gain. So why don’t people see it that way?
It comes down to the fact that most humans get more joy from the misery of others than any gain for themselves- aka the ‘zero sum’ mentality.
The ‘work ethic’ therefore has nothing to do with real work, achievements, productivity or the ‘true worth’ of a person and everything to do with trying to fuck over somebody else. It is no accident that the most zero-sum minded cultures such as the USA, japan, Korea and China are full of people desperately trying to outdo each other at demonstrating their superior work ethic. However the populace of many other countries are not that far behind in portraying themselves as hard workers- whether that is true or not.
I however believe that this scam is on its last legs for reasons far beyond the control of human beings. The ever-increasing amount of automation in labor intensive occupation such as manufacturing, outsourcing to low wage countries, rising legislated income inequality, high rates of youth un- and under-employment and the rapidly aging demographics of developed countries combined with their below replacement birth rates have made real economic growth a thing of the past. Even token ‘hard workers’ can no longer rise up through the ranks as evidence that the system ‘works’. In the past, people went along with the charade because doing so allowed them to enjoy a decent life. As many of you know, only too well, that is now over.
Scams work best when they are somewhat profitable to most participants or capable of maintaining the status quo- and that is no longer the case.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
POV Butt Sex: June 26, 2012 – More evidence that ‘normal’ amateurs do it.
Pinchable Butts: June 28, 2012 – Super cute cheeky girls.
Over many years of viewing amateur-generated porn, I have noticed one trend that is rarely discussed.
Amateurs who make porn are usually young and poor or middle-class.
Pretty much all amateur sex seems to occur in messy room, on or under cheap bed-sheets and worn out comforters, with a background of empty beer bottles, overflowing ashtrays and half-smoked joints. Even the other stuff in the room- from sound systems, computers to laptops and TVs is average. It seem that people with clean rooms, quality comforters, high thread-count cotton sheets and high-end home appliances are conspicuously absent from the amateur porn scene.
But why are people who live an upper-middle class, or better lifestyle, seldom seen in amateur porn?
Some of you might say that upper-middle class or rich people are older and therefore have less sex due to oh.. low hormone levels. OK, that explains the relative infrequency of 50- and 60- year olds having sex on camera. But what about their kids, who are in the ‘right’ age range? Surely, we should be seeing quite a few pictures of their children doing it on camera? But expensive rooms, nice beds, leather couches, posh hotel rooms, new dorm apartments, expensive cars are seldom seen in amateur-generated porn.
Some of you might say that upper-middle class people have ‘old fashioned’ values and mores which prevent them from recording or distributing pictures or videos of themselves having sex. But that runs contrary to the suave, ultra-secular and progressive image that these people try to push- often desperately. Others might say that they are afraid of being recognized because of their high-profile jobs, public image etc- but we have had software like Photoshop to easily blur incriminating parts of a picture for over 15 years. The relative rarity of rich people, as a percentage of the population, might make some sense. But 10-15% of the population is upper middle-class, so expecting 10% of the amateur porn to look like it was shot in a nice suburban house is not unreasonable.
So what is behind the lack of well-off people making amateur porn in an era when it could be done without the limitations, repercussions and other problems that might have explained its absence in previous eras?
I have a theory. It goes something like this.. To make amateur porn you have to first have sex with another willing and enthusiastic human being.
The vast majority of people who live in nice suburban or exurban houses are too occupied with studying for multiple degrees, working hard and competing against each other to enjoy things like sex. These highly evolved beings look down upon the baser pleasures of life such as sex. They would rather spend their time prostituting themselves for a little more money so they can buy more stuff and put on airs to hopefully impress people who don’t give a shit.
Moreover, these avid and hopeful social climbers are not very good at invoking lust and desire in their potential sexual partners. When was the last time you heard a woman gushing over an engineer? Do women see doctors as anything beyond a submissive bitch attached to a fat paycheck? Isn’t that also true for most lawyers? Aren’t women who marry high-flying executives looking for nice cars, expensive furnishings, expensive vacations and big houses? When was the last time you heard a man get an erection because of his woman’s intelligence, education or status? Isn’t it usually the opposite?
But wait.. You too can enjoy expensive, infrequent and mediocre sex with scheming partners by becoming (or aspiring to become) a member of the upper-middle class in western countries.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Butt Sex: June 25, 2012 – Good Girls do Anal
Sixty-Nine Me: June 22, 2012 – Sixty-Nine Me
You might have seen advertisements or read reviews about a new film called ‘Seeking a Friend for the End of the World‘. The overall story line goes something like this-
As an asteroid nears Earth, a man finds himself alone after his wife leaves in a panic. He decides to take a road trip to reunite with his high school sweetheart. Accompanying him is a neighbor who inadvertently puts a wrench in his plan.
One of the somewhat ignored part of the plots is that human (specifically American) efforts to divert or breakup an asteroid fail- repeatedly. Did you catch that? Now compare this outcome to movies from the late 1990s such as Deep Impact and Armageddon.
How did Hollywood disaster movies go from the triumphant but unrealistic tone of ‘Deep Impact’ to the depressing but realistic one in ‘Seeking a Friend for the End of the World’?
There are those who say that such apocalypse/disaster movies are feeding into a public fascination with Mayan end time prophecies. While this explanation has some merit, it cannot explain why many of the recent popular and not so popular creations of Hollywood have a less than optimistic view of the world. For a longest time, Hollywood movies were soaked, then infused and finally pumped full of optimism such that even films on fairly dark and morbid subjects had a happy or happy-ish ending. The monster always dies, disaster is always averted, evil is always defeated, the officials are always competent or lucky, the guy always gets his girl. So why have the last 7 years seen so many films with less than happy endings? The same can be said about TV. Shows such as “Weeds”, “Dexter”, “Girls” or even “The Sopranos” would have been unthinkable in the mid-1990s.
So what changed? What happened to American exceptionalism and optimism?
I believe that the strong belief in exceptionalism and forced optimism that dominated the American psyche and popular culture is dying. There are many reasons behind this shift in attitudes ranging from general trends such as the lack of economic mobility, poor job security and working conditions, the rapidly increasing use of legislation and force to pauperize/abuse well-meaning people, the very obvious drop in social cohesion etc. There is however one another reason that we rarely talk about, even now.
It is now obvious, if only on a subconscious level, to most non-retarded americans under a certain age that all important public and private institutions have been damaged beyond repair or resurrection.
The key words in my claim are ‘damaged beyond repair or resurrection’. Most Americans still tell each other, and themselves, that these institutions can be cleansed, repaired and rehabilitated. However, deep down, they know that institutions from schools, universities, the health care system, police, judiciary to banks, corporations and all levels of government have been compromised beyond repair. They are aware that these institutions can no longer be expected to perform at the expected and necessary level of competence.
People are beginning to see that they are trapped in a once impressive, but now decaying, building that is not being repaired or maintained inspite of repeated promises to do so. Those who are supposed to keep it in top shape are still collecting the payments and pretending to work (replacing a few light bulbs here and there, repainting a room) but it now becoming obvious that they are far closer to slumlords than competent professionals. Furthermore, unfragmented mass media, which was the main psychological weapon of these slumlords has lost its near monopoly and more importantly- its credibility.
That is why popular entertainment today is dominated by morally ambiguous ‘anti-hero’ characters, dystopic fiction, depictions of institutional incompetence, greed and cruelty and a overwhelming sense that “trusted” professionals are lying or cannot deliver what they had promised.
What do you think? Comments?
You might be aware of the recent guilty verdict against Jerry Sandusky on multiple counts of sexual abusing young boys. Even before this verdict, the intertubes were full of people calling for a public lynching or torture of that guy. I, however, find the public reaction to his crimes rather odd and full of show morality.
Before I go any further, let us be clear about one thing. From the very beginning of this trial, it was obvious that Sandusky had a series of rather odd relationships with adolescent boys for many decades. This brings up two questions that most people don’t like to discuss in any worthwhile detail.
1. How could a guy with such an obviously problematic behavioral profile stay out of trouble for so long? I mean.. look at the guy, hear him talk or read his books. He was almost daring people to come and get him.
Yet prior to these charges, he was a highly respected member of society. So how could a person like Sandusky keep on doing what he did for decades and with dozens of boys? Surely, he could not have concealed such an obvious behavioral peculiarity from all the people around him for years. So why did the people around him not care? What about his wife? What about the people who worked with him for years? What about the relatives of all those boys he abused. If people really cared about preventing child sexual abuse, they would have exposed and tried him decades ago. However their behavior during all those years suggests that they prefer the very American worship of money and fame, over doing anything to support their publicly stated beliefs.
The outbursts of outrage and moral posturing at his trial and conviction are therefore merely an unconscious reaction of the public upon being exposed as negligent hypocrites.
and this brings us to the next question.
2. How is sexual abuse of children any worse than schools systems that ignore bullying, parents who relentlessly push their kids into show-business or sports, or Asian parents who push their kids to excel in schools and universities?
What is the basis for saying that one action is more criminal than another action? Is sexual abuse by a middle-aged guy in return for monetary and other help really more damaging to a child than white parents who push their reluctant kids into careers in show-business and sports? Are mothers who continuously push their pre-teen daughters in beauty and dance competitions really damaging to their kids than a boy being forced to give a few blowjobs to Sandusky? Are the parents who relentlessly push their kids into professional sports careers not as abusive and damaging to their children’s future than a few ‘bubble fights’ with Sandusky? Are Asian parents who continuously berate, blackmail, threaten and abuse their kids for academic success any less exploitative or damaging than Sandusky playing ‘hide the sausage’ with his foster kids?
So why do people express so much outrage at what Sandusky did? How did he screw up the boys he sexually abused any more that parents who berate, blackmail, threaten and abuse their kids for their own personal gains or status? I don’t see people lining up to express outrage at dance moms, beauty pageant moms, sport nut fathers or Asian parents? If we were to use future psychological and emotional damage as the main criteria for deciding whether a particular adult-child interaction is criminal or not, shouldn’t a lot parents and teachers be in jail? If we are not using psychological and emotional damage as a criteria for something being right or wrong, what other rational criteria are we using?
What do you think? Comments?
Have you ever wondered if there was a quick and easy way for identifying the weak points and deficits of any given society? Here is one..
A society usually lacks whatever quality, resource or attribute it portray itself as full of.
Maybe a few examples would help you understand my point.
Let us start with the USA as our first example. For some odd reasons, people from that country will never tire of telling you that it is full of happy, hardworking and honest individualists. However, as many of you also know, the reality is rather different. Even the casual visitor quickly notices that the USA is full of joyless, greedy and fat drones who will prefer to work in some ‘safe’ job selling their soul for a few bucks so that they can buy stuff to fit into a ‘cool’ crowd of people they barely know. Or take their much publicized “best healthcare system in the world” which is supposedly patronized by people from other countries. Oddly enough, it provides markedly inferior general outcomes when compared to less expensive systems in ‘socialistic’ countries. The American justice system, which is supposed to be fair and a system governed by ‘laws not me’, somehow manages to incarcerate ore people than China or Russia- both in sheer numbers and percentage. Did I mention that most criminal cases in the USA never go to trial and are settled by onerous plea bargains and mandatory sentences.. kinda like they used to do in those ‘bad’ communist countries. Or what about the savage treatment of peaceful protesters during the recent OWS demonstrations?
However such cognitive dissonance is not uniquely American- by any stretch of imagination. Let us look at India as another example. Most people from that country claim that it is a functional democracy. While that country is certainly a democracy, it is well.. not quite functional. Or take the claims that Indians are vegetarians because they are compassionate and spiritual people. The reality is that vegetarianism in India is a stupid and self-destructive status symbol. As far as compassion and spirituality.. let’s just say that those qualities are rather uncommon in Indians. The average Indian is a greedy, dishonest, money and status obsessed shyster- just like your average American. Most Indians also claim to be keepers of a rich five thousand-year tradition. The only problem with that claim is that most people in India cannot read, or understand, the ancient languages in which those traditions were passed down- in written or oral form. Then there is the unique ability to make poor long-term decisions to pursue short-term profit, while proclaiming their ability to be good at long-term thinking. The progress of east-Asians in the last 100 years has been based on copying and selling products to the west. Sure.. east-Asians make good drones and indentured laborers, but much of their so -called superior culture and traditions are ways to cover their own inadequacies.
East-Asians are also full of shit. They talk a lot about their willingness to work hard, study boring crap, be financially frugal and progress in life based on their merit and competence. But they somehow avoid any discussions about the reasons behind their approximately 4,000 years of cultural, social and technological stagnation. Surely all of those wonderful and wise Confucius-based attributes should have resulted in continuous and relentless progress- but did it? Why not? They also talk about how their society places the group about the individual as an example of selflessness. Paradoxically that trait did not stop their social, cultural and technological stagnation nor did it result in any endogenous improvement in their level of prosperity until they found ways to copy and sell inexpensive stuff to western countries. The reality is that the average behavioral profile of east-Asians comes rather close to greedy, amoral sociopaths whose are unable to imagine a society not based on systemic theft, abuse and scams.
People from European countries are no less delusional. They keep on trying to live in a bygone era when they used to the center of the world. Reality, has however, moved on. Their self-image of themselves as civilized is at considerable odds with their history- especially the parts about numerous wars between themselves and looting of other countries. They pretend to be be more evolved when any objective reading of history will tell you that the lifestyle and mentality of the average European in the last century was not that different from a slum dweller in Nigeria today. They somehow like to brush over the fact that, even a century ago, their social institutions and customs were not that different from people they look down upon today. They try to portray the technological and industrial revolution of the last 200 years as an ode to their superior intelligence, when it was largely funded by stealing and enslaving people in other countries and abusing many in their own. I could go on, but let us get to the next point.
So, why do people and cultures try to cover their inadequacies by lying to others and themselves?
I believe that the answer lies in their efforts maintaining a positive ‘self-image’. Humans have an instinctive sense of right and wrong that is independent of religion, culture or other secondary belief systems. It is this instinctive sense that pushes people to make up lies, cover stories, rituals and propaganda to reconcile their instinctive sense of right and wrong with reality and their own actions.
Most propaganda, lies and misrepresentations are not meant for others. They are meant to convince yourself that you are basically a decent human being inspite of substantial evidence to the contrary.
What do you think? Comments?
Ever few weeks, or months, we hear about how some new super-computer has claimed the crown of the ‘fastest’ computer in the world. We are then bombarded with many numbers that document its impressive CPU count, RAM size, x gazillion operations per second, bus speed etc. But have you ever wondered-
What are these machines being used for anyway?
While running benchmarking programs to showcase the capabilities of your new toy is certainly satisfying, I cannot help but wonder what happens next. The conventional line fed to journalists who cover such events goes something like this-
“These new machines will help us model the universe/ weather systems/ climate change/ protein folding or any fashionable cause that attracts more funding.”
But haven’t we been doing those things since the beginning of the computer age? What have we achieved so far? How far has simulation of complex natural systems been helpful in understanding them? Can we make better predictions using faster computers or more refined algorithms? So far, computer simulations have not helped us understand or find dark matter- if something like that even exists. Our ability to predict the weather is still shit, and our climate models require “correction” factors to even approach observed values. Our ability to model protein folding and bio-molecular interactions is still pretty pathetic. This state of affairs has persisted in the face of colossal increases in available computational power. So what is going on? Why haven’t the computer gods delivered? Why would throwing more computational power at a problem solve it if previous attempts to do so have proved futile?
I believe that the problem lies elsewhere. Maybe our paradigms, assumptions, theories and algorithms are defective. While accepting this premise might be hard, it explains why the almost exponential increase in available computational power has failed to produce even a linear increase in our ability to accurately model complex systems.
I have long believed the science today is closer to a mystery-based religion than an objective methodology to understand the surrounding world. How many scientists and “experts” really understand what they are talking about in their jargon laden dialects? How much nonsense and bullshit is accepted and canonized because it sounds smart or knowledgeable. Aren’t their jargon-laden explanations rather similar to priests and witches communicating with deities, demons and spirits? How many scientists have even thought through the multitude of theories and paradigms they enthusiastically profess and promote?
Isn’t the search for dark matter a lot like the search for ‘celestial ether’ in the late 1800s, or the holy grail in a previous era? Aren’t most theories of the universe which can be proved only by self-referential mathematical manipulations a bit too much like religions beliefs based on misleadingly complex and sophistic arguments? Isn’t modeling climate with algorithms that require significant correction factors reminiscent of astrology, palm reading or reading animal entrails? While there are many reasons for this sad state of the so-called “cutting edge” of science- one factor stands out by its sheer obviousness and impact.
The need to show evidence for high metrics driven productivity in a system riddled with bureaucracy, bloated egos, stupidity and callousness.
Much of scientific research has long ceased to be an endeavor to expand the frontiers of human knowledge and benefit mankind- if that was ever the case. Today, it is mainly an exercise in hand-waving driven by the need to give the appearance of hard work to ensure continued funding. It is now a giant con game that preys on the hopes and fears of other people and repeatedly promises them things that they simply cannot deliver- kinda like religion promising salvation, heaven or an eternal afterlife.
I believe that using super-computers to create, store and distribute porn is a far better and more appropriate use of such machines.
What do you think? Comments?
This post was inspired by a few recent incidents involving my interactions with handicapped people, and I am sure that many of you had similar experiences. Have you noticed that-
Handicapped people, in western countries, demand special treatment and consideration yet want other to show deference to them and overlook the fact that they are usually incredibly shitty people?
First, let me be very clear about a few things. I do not blame handicapped people for their misfortunes, even if they were responsible for their disability. I also do not have problems with the use of public funds to make their life easier and more ‘normal’. Nor am I implying that handicapped people should continuously thank able-bodied people for their kindness, consideration and charity.
But is it too much to expect handicapped people to behave like normal people? Why do most handicapped people behave as if their handicap makes them morally superior, beyond criticism and almost holy? Why do they act as if being handicapped is a license to demand that others treat them with reverence, ignore their shitty attitudes, watch what they say around them and generally treat them as the center of the universe?
I cannot help comparing the general attitude and mindset of handicapped people to feminists. It is hard to ignore that both groups demand special treatment because of significant personal deficiencies, which they may (or may not) be responsible for. The similarity between the socio-legal paths chosen by both groups is too high to be merely coincidental. They both started by appealing to the general populations sense of pity, decency and fairness. However once they achieved most of their primary goals, they started to down the path of pushing their agenda through punitive legislation. While such rules and regulations were initially labelled as anti-discriminatory legislation, they quickly grew and morphed into an entire ecosystem devoted to promoting that group. Society went along with a legislative approach because it did help create more well-paid jobs.
The next step involved elevating the handicapped and women over other members of the society. It started with promoting a few as martyrs and courageous people, but rapidly degenerates into a scam where anyone with a disability or a cunt automatically becomes a courageous martyr struggling against the cruel world- even if that was untrue. Infact, the mere suggestion that all disabled people and women are not deserving superheros immediately started marking that person for punitive socio-legal attention. The commercial ecosystem surrounding these groups also became bigger to the extent that the ‘disadvantaged ‘ were promoted over other members of that society.
Most members of these so-called victimized and oppressed group now started seeing themselves as morally superior and deserving martyrs who are incapable of being anything less than a saint. They start demanding privileges beyond those enjoyed by other members of that society. They took offense to every perceived slight and insult. Even the most basic interactions with such people became riddled with pitfalls and faux pas for the unwary person. They now start perceiving themselves as the victims of relentless persecution, discrimination and abuse- regardless of evidence to the contrary.
A person who tries to suggest that these groups are being unreasonable, greedy, litigious and supremacist now faces the risk of being labelled and persecuted as a public enemy, as opposed to the previous charge of simple heresy. In the meanwhile, both groups continue to push an ever-increasing amounts of crap on the rest of society.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Self Shots: June 17, 2012 – Self-Shots found on Tumblr.
More Self Shots: June 17, 2012 – Self-Shots found on Tumblr.
Many apparently non-retarded people seem to believe members of the so-called “elite class” are very good at strategic and long-term thinking. This particular belief is the basis for pretty much all conspiracy theories which you would have ever heard or read about. But is that belief true? or is it just a case of wish projection? Remember, I am not denying that people try to conspire or scheme. The real question is whether they can achieve anything beyond pissing in the rain.
In my opinion there are two types of reasons why the “elite” are far less competent than most people can imagine.
1. A ‘winner takes all’ system, like the one we live in, favors luck and chance over competence.
Let me clarify this point with a few examples. Would Microsoft be what it is today if it had not gotten a few important lucky breaks in the beginning or its now-extinct competitors made fewer mistakes? Think about it.. Was MS-DOS or Windows the best or even only Operating System for 1980-1990 era PCs? Was IBM the most popular PC manufacturer throughout the 1980s? Were all of its competitors such as Commodore, Apple and Amiga or even IBM staffed with incompetent engineers and programmers? So why did they not win the PC race? Could it be that it was luck and chance, not competence or ability, that made Microsoft the still undisputed leader in PC operating systems?
Let us take WalMart as another example. Beyond all the talk about their wonderful supply chains and logistics lies the real reason for their success- cheap manufacturing in developing countries. Ask yourself- How much of its success is dependent on the neo-liberal policies followed by the USA since the 1980s and concurrent mercantilism practiced by totalitarian low-wage countries such as China? The success of WalMart is largely due to being the right place at the perfect time with the right attitude. Changing any one of these pre-conditions would have changed the outcome of retail shopping in the USA.
2. Money and reputation from previous “wins” can be used cover current mistakes.
Ok, here are some rhetorical questions. Would any company other than Microsoft Have been able to survive the flops known as ‘Windows Me‘ and ‘Vista‘? In both cases, revenue from their previous successes such as Win98, Win NT and WinXp allowed them to weather failures that would have killed pretty much any other company. But what does repeatedly making such potentially lethal mistakes say about their intrinsic competence? Or take Apple, which also made many mistakes (Lisa, Newton) and took many mistakes (they initially resisted independent apps on the iPhone).
Another good set of examples concerns the recent failures of new drugs in Phase II and Phase III human clinical trials. Many of these new drugs were supposed to be blockbusters, and yet they failed miserably after each consuming billions of dollars and years of research by thousands of people. How could so many thousands of “super-smart” people fuck up so badly? In many cases, the fuck-ups were so basic and obvious that even a bunch of semi-retarded people would have figured them out.
Or look at the F-22.. they still cannot fix problems in the oxygen supply for pilots for an airplane that cost over 200 million dollars a piece. Even worse, the F-22 program has suffered from even more basic failures in the past- in many cases after induction of the aircraft in the USAF. How can people who are supposedly “smart and competent” make such big mistakes.. again and again? Or take Donald Trump.. How many times have businesses run by that guy defaulted on their creditors? and yet he seems to have little problem raising money for his next batch of hare-brained schemes. Or ask yourself- How many of Warren Buffet’s “wins” are due to legalized corruption, sweetheart deals and discrete influence peddling?
The reality is that the so-called “elite” are often less competent than your average village idiot. Only social inertia, slick image manipulation and the willingness of people to believe in a ‘fair’ world keep them relevant.
These people don’t have even the basics of what they claim to excel in. Take strategic thinking. People often forget that quality strategic thinking requires a high degree of objectivity which in turn requires a certain level of detachment from your immediate environment to see the bigger and less obvious picture. The “elite”, on the other hand, use their money and position in society to insulate themselves from the bigger picture. They tend to focus on the minutiae such as status jockeying (where they studied, traveled, ate, drank or what they read, saw, listened to etc). They spend their whole lives trying to think about as small a slice of reality as possible, while claiming to be good at seeing it all.
The “elite” also claim to be good at ‘long-term’ thinking- but the bulk of evidence suggests otherwise. Let us first consider the obvious problem with any ‘long-term’ planning aka our inability to predict the future. Given that many “super-smart” people have been repeatedly shown to be so wrong, should we even trust anybody who claims to predict the future? How can you predict any process which you neither understand nor control? Look at human history.. it is full of so many actions and decisions which in retrospective look like the handiwork of severely retarded persons. However all of these actions and decisions were conceived, executed and supported by the “best of the best” and the “brightest” minds of that era. How come these “most respectable” and “meritorious” people kept on fucking up so badly- century after century, millenia after millenia? Note that many of these fuckups hurt the “elite” in power as bad or even worse that the populations they were lording over.
I believe that the best way to model “elite” thought, behavior and actions in any human society is to ask yourself the simple question- What would a parasite do? aka WWPD?
What do you think? Comments?
Some of you might have heard that an employee of G4S Cash Solutions Canada shot four of his coworkers, killing three of them.
Edmonton police are looking for an employee for a security firm who remains missing following an armoured-car robbery attempt that left three guards dead and another fighting for his life at Edmonton’s University of Alberta.Travis Brandon Baumgartner, 21, an employee of G4S Cash Solutions Canada, was identified by police as the subject of “an intense investigation,” Edmonton police chief Rod Knecht said. “This was not a random attack,” he said. At 3 p.m. local time, Edmonton police announced they were issuing four warrants – three counts of first-degree murder, one of attempted murder – for Mr. Baumgartner’s arrest.
Now, workplace shootings are not uncommon in the USA. Infact, we have a term to describe them- going postal. Mark Ames has even written a fairly well-recieved book about this phenomena- Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine and Beyond.
However this incident has some peculiarities. First- it happened in Canada… yes, Canada! Incidents such as these are extremely unusual in this country. Secondly, the guy does not meet many of the criteria of your typical workplace shooter. The alleged shooter is apparently tall (6′ 4″), was gainfully employed and not your average loner or anti-social guy. He did have some somewhat overtly optimistic estimates about his future- but nothing odd for a 22 year old guy. Infact, nothing about him stands out as particularly odd. Sure.. he had an interest in guns, but so do many men who seek employment in the armed forces or police.
People who want to rob an armored truck do not typically post FaceBook updates like-
His last status, written at 11:33 a.m. Thursday, quoted a line spoken in the movie The Dark Knight, by the Joker character. “One night she grabs the kitchen knife to defend herself, now he doesn’t like that… Not… One… Bit…” Mr. Baumgartner wrote.
or write things like this on their timeline-
Mr. Baumgartner’s Facebook page also suggests he was excited about his job. Earlier this week, he’d posted before a shift: “It’s time to go fill ABMs. If you want to know where that money comes from, I’ll tell you… Me “
And, on June 1, he wrote: “I wonder if I’d make the 6 o clock news if I just started poping [sic] people off.”
I believe that money, was at best, the peripheral motivation behind his unfortunate actions. In my opinion, his motivations to do what he did were highly personal in nature.. or he was doing bath salts.
What do you think? Comments?
PS: We will return to our usual programing about the nature and behavior of complex socio-economic systems and pictures of nekkid chicks after this post.
I was going to finish another large post today, but am not in the right mood today (shit weather). So here is a clip of an Argentinian TV dance competition.
What do you think? Comments?
Much of my free time is spent surfing the web. Over the course of many years, I have seen many interesting things and noticed patterns that are not that obvious. This post is about one of the not-so-obvious patterns, namely that women have gotten fatter and choosier over the last 3 decades.
It all started with links to photographs of bizarre hair and dress styles from the 1970s and 1980s. While many of the styles from that era are truly bizarre and not worthy of emulation, I noticed two other trends in those photographs.
1. Until the mid-1980s even average women were quite slim and pretty. I am not implying that all women in that era were supermodels or even hot, but the majority were thin and attractive enough to fuck without resorting to mental tricks to justify the decision.
2. The men in those pictures were not particularly handsome, super masculine or even that well dressed. It seemed that even a fairly average guy in that era could get a reasonably attractive and slim girlfriend or wife.
This got me thinking- Why have women become fatter and more choosier over the last three decades? I could understand if they had become hotter and more choosier (more intrinsic value = more choosier) or fatter and less choosier (less intrinsic value = less choosier).
But how can a group lose intrinsic value while become more choosier? Something did quite not add up.. Now, there are already many theories on the intertubes about how women can become fatter and more choosier at the same time. Most of them revolve around how the status consciousness of women prevents them from accepting a relationship with an average guy at their level of attractiveness, even if they themselves are below average. There is, however, one problem with any theory based on changes in the status consciousness of women. It goes something like this- Women have always been supremely status conscious and narcissistic. It is hard to go faster if the vehicle is already at its maximum speed. Therefore we must consider other explanations for this phenomena.
While laws that are heavily tilted in the favor of women and a generalized anti-male social climate can explain some of the behavioral shifts, they cannot explain why the shift seems to accelerating rather than stabilizing at a new equilibrium. There are those who believe that technological changes such as online dating and facebook are to blame- but once again, the chronology and speed of the change in women’s attitudes and the date of introduction and wide-spread use of various attention-whoring technologies does not add up. Let me remind you that the internet was not that big of an influence on women in the late 1980s- early 2000s.
Now, let me tell you my theory about the real culprit behind this change. Are you ready?
Did you notice that the 2 points I made at the beginning of this post also used to once apply to black Americans. There was a time when most black women in the USA were not clinically obese nor was it necessary for a black guy to act hyper-masculine to get them. But then something changed and black women kept putting on more weight and it became harder for the average black guy to get their attention.
Some alt-right morons believe that civil rights movement of the 1960s was behind the destruction of black families. Other morons blame it on government policies that subsidized young and single black mothers. However statistics suggests otherwise.. The vast majority of black women are gainfully employed, as they have always been. So what changed?
Two things.. The first was the negative effect of exporting manufacturing jobs and the war on drugs on black men in general. The second and probably more important change was that an average black woman could now make enough money to support herself and her kids. In my opinion, it was the second change that made it possible for average black women to simultaneously not care about their general appearance while simultaneously demanding hyper-masculine men.
The reason that white women in the 1980s started behaving like black women in the 1960s was that they went down the same path as far as income and social expectations are concerned. In a previous era, white women did not usually work full-time after marriage and their husbands had relatively stable livelihoods. However as the 1980s wore on, both these assumptions underwent the same changes which the black community had experienced two decades earlier. To put it bluntly-
Women who can earn enough to live comfortably will pay lesser and lesser attention to their looks while simultaneously demanding ever more hyper-masculine men for sex.
The reason they behave in this manner is that they can get away with it- for a couple of decades, at least. Face it, a woman with a decent lifelong job has no reason to settle for a guy she considers less than “optimal”. The hypergamous tendency of women also tends to make things worse- as far as men are concerned.
What do you think? Comments?