While drinking some coffee at Starbucks today I overheard the same basic conversation between two sets of women. It went something like this:
Women A: My friend X is waiting for her boyfriend Y to pop the question. They have been a couple for ‘n’ years.. yada yada
Women B: So when do you think he will do it? My friend’s boyfriend Y1 popped her(X1) the question ‘m’ months ago when they were at ‘insert vacation destination’.
Now, I should be upfront that my views on the institution of marriage have always been a bit cynical. However some aspects of that institution are more bizarre and irrational than others.
Consider the commonly accepted custom that the guy should propose to the girl- preferably under some cheesy circumstances. We have all seen elaborate marriage proposals (both creative and cringe-worthy), especially in the era of YouTube and Social Media. While I have no interest in preventing people from making fools of themselves, one question about the whole concept of marriage proposals has always bothered me.
What is the logic behind a guy creatively begging some woman to marry him, when doing so puts him at a permanent disadvantage? Isn’t that a lot like dreaming up a creative way to get a painful and chronic disease?
Throughout human history, marriage has been the shortest route to dull and increasingly infrequent sex with an aging harpy. Today, it is also the fastest way to lose money and assets though child-support and alimony. Moreover, it is no longer an institution that offers men any real support or proof of achievement as they become old.
Marriage, as it exists today, is an institution devoted to transferring money and resources from gullible men to women without even the pretense of benefiting men in any shape or form.
However, we still keep on seeing creative marriage proposals by guys to women who has ridden dozens of cocks before ‘settling’ for them. A majority of those guys also, still, believe that marrying the woman they are proposing to will partially validate the supposed benefits of getting married. In contrast, women are interested in getting married because a] they are hitting the ‘wall’, b] her other friends have ‘done it’ and c] she requires a larger income to indulge her material appetite.
If we strip away the sentimentality and bullshit from modern marriage, one thing becomes painfully obvious. There is no real advantage or gain for a man in marrying a woman he is already fucking. Even if the couple break up, the guy can always find another woman to fuck or just pay for sex by the hour. Marriage, on the other hand, makes him financially and socially vulnerable- even if the couple stay together. The woman, on the other hand, benefits immensely from marriage because it gives her more resources and leverage over the man even as her physical appeal fades into obscurity. It is therefore the woman who really needs and benefits from the institution of marriage.
The customs around marriage are, however, still grounded in the belief that it is men who require marriage more than the women.
While there may have been some truth to this belief in the era before the sexual revolution, modern contraception and feminism; that is no longer the case. Today sexual access to willing women is rather inexpensive if you can convince them that you are a cool player. Furthermore the mainstreaming of safe and high-quality paid sex in most developed countries means that even average guys can get amazing sex at much lower per-fuck rates than marriage while simultaneously avoiding long-term commitments.
I would add my observation that women have no problem sexually servicing a ‘unpredictable, ‘violent’, ‘mysterious’ or ‘in-demand’ guy for years without any offer of marriage. They will however threaten the caring, responsible, bland and ‘educated’ guy with ultimatums for ‘popping the question’.
What do you think? Comments?
Eliminating private gun ownership in the USA has been a perpetual wet-dream of leftist totalitarians for some time now. These scumbags try to use every gun-related incident, however minor or not so minor, to push that dream. Why has it not worked?
The short answer to that question is- for all their faults, most gun-owning americans recognize that gun-control is not about reducing deaths by guns. It is about pulling off a peculiar type of power grab which any sane person would rightfully resent and resist.
So what do I mean by ‘gun control is not about reducing death by guns’?
Let me explain.. You might have heard or read apologists and stooges for the ‘gun control’ movement use any and every media forum to push their ’cause’ under the guise of reducing ‘harm’ by guns. While I am a strong supporter of reducing harm in many other areas, from legalizing drugs and prostitution, the case for reducing ‘harm’ by banning guns strikes me as rather irrational.
Firstly- banning or restricting anything does not reduce the ‘harm’ from it.
If that were not so, banning alcohol production should have reduced the harm caused by it- however the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s suggests otherwise. Prohibition merely destroyed a thriving industrial sector and funneled its revenues into sub-standard and expensive stuff which supported the biggest expansion of organised crime in the history of the USA. I would go so far as to say that the Mafia and (largely corrupt) cops of that era were the principal beneficiary of alcohol prohibition. It did not reduce crime nor the total number of deaths from alcohol consumption. It also made ‘law-breakers’ out of a significant percentage of the american population thereby reducing their respect for other laws passed and enforced by the system. The ‘war on drugs’ has also been a similar failure, though some older white people still support it because it preferentially destroyed the lives of black men. Today it is easier to buy a joint, a few lines of cocaine or vicodin pills than it is to buy a bottle of vodka- especially if you are “underage”. Moreover, much of the early criminality associated with drug trafficking has burnt out to the point that it is a pretty mature and established industry in the USA.
Secondly- people will pay for something that they need.
While advertising can help sell useless crap for some time, the long-term demand for any product is largely determined by real needs. While ‘beanie babies’ were at once highly collectible items, they are no longer so. However people still fill up their cars with about the same amount of gasoline they used to in the mid-1990s. While guns are not as essential as gasoline for cars, they are certainly far more useful than stuffed toys. Furthermore they require a minimal amount of maintenance and usage unlike many other products. Guns that were made many decades ago are still functional, and will be so for decades more. The technology to make decent quality guns is also available all over the world and is hard to separate from normal everyday usage of such technology. It therefore goes without saying that any legal ban or restriction on guns in the USA might not actually affect the ability to acquire guns by those who need it and don’t care about being a law-abiding slave.. I mean “citizen”.
Thirdly- ‘gun control’ does not address the real issues behind gun violence in the USA.
The scam of ‘gun control’ does not address the real and rather unpleasant reasons behind the uniquely high rates of gun-related homicide in america. These disingenuous fucktards pushing for ‘gun control’ don’t seem to care about what makes people in the USA so willing to kill other people. While bad and failed policies such as continuing the failed ‘war on drugs’ and excessive rates of incarceration and dehumanization of non-whites is part of the problem- the root goes much deeper. It concerns how Americans see and treat each others, regardless of race or class.
The USA combines the worst elements of two different types of dytopias. On one hand, it has levels of socio-economic inequality and a general disregard for the lives of other people that approaches (or exceeds) that seen in third-world banana republics. On the other hand, it has levels of social atomization similar to scandinavian countries. It is this combination of dysfunctions that creates a uniquely toxic mix.
The average poor and battered person in your typical high-inequality country (Brazil, Mexico, India or China) can expect a lot of assistance and support from their family and friends. The family and peer support available in such systems in those countries often mitigates the suffering inflicted by the larger system and prevents most people from going off track or becoming highly misanthropic. Atomized societies such as your typical west-european country handle the same basic problem through generous social welfare programs, excellent subsidized healthcare, excellent public infrastructure, subsidized education and housing etc.
Both types of societies try to stop people from reaching a point where they lose all hope in, and connections, to the society at large.
The american system is unique in that has very high levels of inequality without any mechanisms (social or state funded) to protect vulnerable people. Americans, especially whites, take great pleasure in the sufferings of even poorer and vulnerable people. Being a ‘winner’ in american society is largely determined by who you are born to rather than your actual capabilities or willingness to work hard, play by the rules etc.
But if that is the case- why didn’t things go to hell a hundred, or even fifty, years ago?
Here is why.. The long and almost continuous economic expansion of the USA since its beginning prevented the buildup of excessive socio-economic pressure for almost two centuries. While the overall system was grossly unfair, the economic expansion created enough new opportunities to occupy and even reward the disgruntled. People started to believe that a brighter future was around the corner- if they only waited a bit longer. This safety valve also allowed the USA to ignore the needs of its most vulnerable citizens in a manner that the UK, Germany or Russia could not get away with.
The american economic expansion slowed in the 1970s and stopped by the mid-1980s. Most economic growth since then has been largely appropriated by the top 1% of american society leaving the rest to fend for themselves. While it was initially possible to keep people somewhat happy and content by blowing ever larger economic bubbles, that option appears to have reached its end. Then there is the issue of people having fewer or no kids and a concurrent fall in the numbers of those who move to the USA. A substantial reduction in the number and percentages of new suckers combined with the acceleration of income concentration at the top end of society without the safety valve of a new frontier (real or imagined) has unmasked the underlying problems with the american way of doing things.
The screwing of average americans was once restricted to blacks, visible minorities and a few poor whites. Beginning in the 1980s, blue-collar whites joined that list and that is why workplace shootings started in that decade. Initially White-collared morons thought they were insulated from these changes because of their ‘education’ and for a while it appeared to be the case. However that illusion has been slowly eroded over the course of the last 10-12 years. It is therefore no surprise that the younger members of the white-collared group are increasingly taking out their frustrations and disenchantment in the easiest way they can. We should also not forget that prostitution in the USA is too expensive and subject to a lot of arbritrary law enforcement- unlike almost every other developed country.
A lot of young, smart and capable men have realized that they no trustworthy and dependable relationships or friendships, no pleasurable physical contact (even paid), no reciprocal social contract and no ‘better’ future to look forward to in the current setup. Most stop playing the old game, usually after a series of bad experiences, and slowly disengage from an increasingly ubalanced and unstable society. Some adopt alternate life trajectories (the rise of ‘game’, MGTOW etc) rather than go down an obviously fruitless path. A minority decide to kill a few other people before killing themselves.
Guns are just the most easily available means to kill other people in the USA. Banning or restricting them will just make those who want to kill use other methods- some of which might cause a far higher body count per incident than semi-auto guns.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
POV BJs: Dec 25, 2012 – Average-ish chicks playing the skin flute.
More POV BJs: Dec 25, 2012 – More average-ish chicks giving head.
Even More POV BJs: Dec 25, 2012 – Even more chicks sucking the meat lollipop.
OK.. guess why I put up this music video. The first few spoken lines are a dead giveaway.
“He was a sweet child, good birth weight, was quiet and kept to himself”.
“this world rejects me, this world threw me away, this world never gave me a chance, this world gonna have to pay
life don’t believe in your institutions, i did what you want me to, like the cancer in your system, i’ve got a little suprise for you”
“I look down at where you’re standing, Flock of sheep out on display, With all your lives piled up around you, I can take it all away.”
In a previous post from just over a year ago (How iOS and Android Will Affect PC Evolution) I wrote about how the superior user experience of mobile computing devices was changing consumer expectations about personal computing. Since then even more powerful mobile CPUs and GPUs have been introduced. Mobile operating systems have also become more capable without losing much (if any) of their usability advantages over the ones currently running on laptops and desktops.
A couple of recent experiences have only reinforced my belief that the operating systems of personal computers in the near future will increasingly resemble (and be derived) from their mobile counterparts. I also believe that Android, not iOS, is likely to be the biggest future threat to Windows. So how did I come to this conclusion? Let me start by describing a couple of the above mentioned experiences.
My first experience came about recently when I was trying out some laptops and tablets at the local branch of a well know chain store. After trying out a few demo laptops preloaded with Window 8, including some very nice ones with SSDs, I passed by a display with Android tablets and decided to try them too. One of the units was a newer Transformer tablet running Android 4.1. I tried performing a variety of common actions from opening large and complex websites on the browser, checking the mobile office suite etc. I was however struck by one thing.
The Android 4.1-running Transformer ‘tablet-top’ blew the Windows 8- running laptops out of the water in many areas ranging from the speed of cold bootup to the responsiveness and functionality of applications and the OS in general. While the construction quality of the Windows 8 laptops was better than the Asus ‘tablet-top’ there was no doubt in my mind that the later offered a superior personal computing experience.
My next epiphany was the result of trying out the ‘mobile’ versions of a few specialized scientific software that I have used for many years. While the quality and features of such mobile versions used to be rather mediocre and limited- as late as last year, that is no longer the case. The iOS and Android versions of these applications now approach or exceed the features of 4-5 year old desktop versions of the same. They also have almost all of the commonly used features and functionalities found in their desktop conterparts.
It does not take a genius to realize that the capabilities of the CPUs and operating systems of mobile devices are only going to improve- at least in the next few years. Even today, mobile devices provide a superior user experience for performing common tasks such as surfing the web, checking emails, looking at content, checking social media feeds etc. Now specialized software applications are also getting into the act. It is only a matter of time before someone starts building full-fledged laptops with ARM-based CPUs and a mobile-derived operating system.
So who will be the winner in this computing expansion/shift- as far as current contenders are concerned?
While iOS is the oldest, most well-known and well-designed mobile operating system- it is owned by Apple. Given the short-term focus and lack of imagination that characterizes senior corporate management, it is unlikely that Apple will make that leap. In any case, the lucrativeness of the current and future sales of their mobile devices might make them averse to taking another big leap- especially since Steve Jobs passed away. While features of iOS will continue to trickle into OSX and its successor, I would be very surprised if they made any truly revolutionary changes- even though iOS and OSX are not that far apart.
Moving on to Microsoft, my experience with Windows 8 (on even Intel i7-CPU containing laptops) suggest that the company has much to learn about building uncluttered, responsive and user-friendly mobile operating systems. While they have concentrated on reproducing (and even surpassing) the visual effects of iOS and Android, the interface and user-friendliness of their OS and the applications running on it leaves much to be desired. There is no point in creating a mobile version of office applications if you don’t carefully think through what your users use and don’t use. Shoehorning a simplified-looking version of your desktop software onto a mobile platform is a recipe for losing users. Similarly creating an operating-system without well thought out controls and consistent behavior does help your case either- a lesson that Android learned the hard way.
Which leaves us with Google’s Android.. Now I an aware that it too has had its own issues in the past. However Android has grown past them and the latest 2 versions are clearly better than other mobile OSes as far as intrinsic capabilities and potential for expansion are concerned. Apart from it being free and open-source (hackable), the diversity of applications available for it ensure that geek-driven expansion of its abilities will be much faster than the much more tightly controlled iOS. I believe that the future personal computing OS is most likely to be derived from Android. And yes, I am aware that Google is also trying to sell ‘Chrome OS’ Laptops and Netbooks- without much success.
Let me be also clear about one thing- I do not expect the shift from Windows type OSes to Android type OSes to be sudden or complete. Microsoft will probably keep on selling current and future versions of Windows as long as they run legacy applications- especially important for their businesses clientele. I also do not expect Google to openly and aggressively challenge Microsoft for domination of the personal computing market. The change will come from some medium-sized manufacturers/assemblers of mobile devices or laptops tinkering around existing hardware to produce that one ‘hit’ which will make them rich and famous. While most of such attempts will fail, a few that will succeed and inspire better copies by more well-known manufacturers who will then push it as their own. I do not expect the process to be smooth and predictable- but it is very likely to occur within the next 3-4 years.
What do you think? Comments?
In a previous post (Cults, Religions and Ideologies Merely Unmask Human Nature), I asked why remarkably similar organized religion-type ideologies arose across different cultures and in all historical eras. Towards the end of that post I said..
Maybe the default mental settings for a majority of human beings are very different from what we want to believe. Maybe most human beings are NOT thoughtful and reasonable creatures with any hard-wired concepts of what we call ‘humanity’. Maybe most humans are more like poisonous and invasive weeds than sentient apes who might evolve into something “better”. Maybe most humans, especially the so-called ‘high IQ’ morons, are actually incapable of rational thinking given that they expend their “intellect” into creating newer scams to do steal, abuse and kill others rather than elevating their own capabilities.
Most people tend to see humans as either ‘fallen angels’ or ‘risen apes’. I propose a third view, namely that humans (or at least the vast majority of them irrespective of intelligence) have more in common with poisonous and invasive weeds bent on choking and killing each other than anything that approaches sentient creatures. While I do not dispute that humans posses some degree of sentience and the ability to reason, any alien intelligence studying humans would correctly deduce that there is very little in human history or the present that suggests anything beyond a very limited use of those faculties.
It is especially ironic that the very humans who consider themselves ‘high IQ’ possess the most regressive and zero-sum ‘minds’ and exhibit the most bizarrely retrograde behaviors.
So what is the basis for my claim that those with ‘High IQ’ are the most regressive and parasitic humans. One of my older posts (What the Behavior of Physicians, Academics and Lawyers Says About IQ) talks about this at some length. The gist of my argument is that ‘high IQ’ people are selfish shysters who display extreme conformism and lie with every breath while slavishly worshiping tradition. They have no interest in any innovation that does further their cancerous motivations. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself- why didn’t all the struggles, wars, genocides and other changes in the entire history of human civilization not improve the life of the average person save the last hundred-odd years. I mean.. why did not all the empire building, agriculture, slavery, torture, murder and genocides throughout human history improve the lives of most people- even those who did all those things.
Isn’t that a lot of effort for essentially no gain?
The more delusional and ‘educated’ might say something about ‘thermodynamics’ and ‘availability of technology’. So let us dissect the argument that it was circumstances and not the nature of humans which led to a zero-sum world view. Once again, an older post by me (Why didn’t the Industrial Revolution start Earlier?) tackles this question and concludes with..
Maybe civilization is not about making things better for most people. Maybe it is about making things worse for most people. Maybe civilization is about impoverishing, killing, starving, abusing and torturing others. Maybe it is about depriving people of happiness and human decency. Maybe civilization, as we know it, is about a few getting lucky and screwing others just to feel a bit better about their own pathetic lives.
Let me give you one easy to understand example that illustrates my point. The western roman empire at its peak (100-200 AD) had the minds, size, organisational infrastructure and technological know-how to start the age of “enlightenment and discovery”. They possessed the necessary know-how to build concrete structures, centrally heated buildings and swimming pools, glass making and had a good grasp on mechanics and rudimentary chemistry which could have easily allowed them to build telescopes, microscopes, print books, build better cities, mine and burn coal, build machines that could replace or at least supplemented slave labor.
But did they do any of those things? No.. they just went on doing what they had done before. It is as if they could not imagine a world that was better than their own. Some of you might see this as cultural inertia and institutional rigidity- but was that really the case. The Romans certainly had no problem with changing emperors who lost popularity through assassinations nor did they have qualms about assimilating new religious ideas- so why were ideas on improving human existence so few and far between? Can you seriously say that no person in the roman empire ever considered the possibility of microscopic life-forms causing infectious diseases, methods to mass produce books or mine coal on a large scale? In contrast to that- new ideas about invisible buddies (new gods), new ways to kill and enslave other people (fight wars) and steal from others (unfair laws) found willing and enthusiastic audiences.
Remember that this occurred in an era when the effects of infectious diseases, poor sanitation and energy poverty dominated the lives of most people and affected even emperors. Yet the roman people and their leaders spent a lot of effort in creating bigger gladiatorial spectacles, building bigger arenas, bigger palaces, bigger walls, fighting bigger wars and generally expending their effort into things which did not improve their lives. It was if they were willing to do anything and everything as long as it did not make their lives better. But why? Is human stupidity, shortsightedness and the inertia of tradition sufficient to explain this behavior? In my opinion, the historical record of human civilization only makes sense if a significant majority of people are functionally closer to mindless poisonous and invasive weeds than sentient apes.
Cults, religions and ideologies should therefore be seen as pathetic justifications and self-rationalizations for acting like poisonous and invasive weeds.
The pseudo-rationalizations provided by belief systems are great for people who are too cowardly or somewhat ashamed to act as they really want to. Plus people are narcissistic and want to be seen as doing the ‘right’ thing even when they are not. Believing in ideological bullshit allows people to pretend that killing and robbing ‘unbelievers’ is an act of piety performed by a ‘good person’ rather than what it really is. It allows people following ‘orders’ to commit horrible acts and still maintain their self-image as decent ‘law-abiding’ human beings.
Some of you might still think that is possible to reason with people who have uncritical faith in any belief system. I believe that is not possible and possibly counterproductive since these people REQUIRE those belief systems to justify their sad and pathetic existence. The only way to really stop such people (and their progeny) is to make them disappear- forever.
What do you think? Comments?
In one of my previous posts (What the Mental Image of ‘God’ says about the Human Mind) , I said the following..
The image of ‘god/s’ in each religious belief systems is therefore really a projection of the deepest desires of those who profess faith in that particular system.
The next logical question then is- What does that say about those who do things because they are trying to be good members of their cult, religion or ideology? I hope you realize that there is no basic difference between a cult, religion and ideology. Doing something questionable for a group that professes belief in Xenu, Kolob, the ‘God’ in the Old Testament, the Son of God, Allah or Mother Earth are functionally equivalent and tell us more about the true nature of the human ‘mind’ rather than anything about those fictional entities. Similarly a person who does things because they believe in Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Feminism, Scientists, Experts or any other -ism is functionally identical to one who does it for a more traditional god.
So what do the more feverent followers of any religious ideology do when they are not trying to show each other that they are the ‘bestest’ followers of the one true word of ‘god’ from its ‘final’ prophet? Guess…
They are busy using their professed faith to lie, steal, abuse, torture and kill other people. Some people think that modern cults like Scientology are somehow more evil than traditional religions like Christianity and Islam. However even a cursory reading of history suggests otherwise. I would highly recommend you to read books that describe various versions of what the ‘faithful’ Catholic Spanish did to the ‘heathen’ indigenous people of the Caribbean, South and Central America. I am talking actual torture, executions, rape, slavery etc- not just all the diseases they brought with them to the Americas. Even the versions written by semi-sympathetic Spanish priests make the genocides carried out by third Reich look rather tame. Once they could find no more gold and silver, they simply enslaved whoever was still alive and have continued to exploit them. Even Stalin’s genocides ultimately made things a bit better than before (compare Russia in 1920 to Russia in 1950). The same cannot be said about the Portuguese-Spanish genocides in Mesoamerica where things never really got better until late in the 20th century.
Let us face it- the Portuguese and Spanish conquistadors were into stealing gold, killing others and raping women. They just justified their behavior through increasingly peculiar interpretation of religions- because even the biggest sociopath likes to believe that he or she is a ‘good’ person.
Then there is the whole issue about what actually drove the spread of Islam in the early middle ages. While modern apologists would like you to believe that they were trying to spread their version of the ‘good word’ the historical facts say otherwise. Every single expansion of Islam was driven by the need for more Gold, Slaves and Pussy. Accounts of events by Muslim scholar, kings and generals show they were obsessed with how much loot was collected, how many ‘unbelievers’ were killed and how many slaves and women were captured. Spreading their religion was really low on their list of priorities and was frequently an afterthought. Some might say that they were merely following the example of the founder of that religion- and I would agree.
It is obvious that Islam, like Catholicism, has functionally been largely a smokescreen for looting, killing and raping. I would go on to say that Protestantism was no better given the multitude of Catholic-Protestant Wars in the earlier part of the ‘Age of Enlightenment’. Similarly the Roman and Greek religions were mostly about providing justification for looting, killing and raping. Even religions that did not explicitly command their followers to fight wars against unbelievers (Hinduism, Confucian Belief Systems) were built around abusing, looting and stealing from other people. Capitalism for all its pretense of enlightenment and rationality is functionally no different from any traditional religion that provides a smokescreen for the same- as is communism which delivers some version of hell while claiming to herald the dawn of utopia.
But what does that say about the people who profess beliefs in such ideologies? What does it say about the real nature of human beings?
You might have noticed that groups as unconnected as Romans in the 2nd century BC, Arabs in the 7th Century AD and Aztecs in the 14th century AD or Capitalists in our era keep acting the same way under different ideological guises. It is therefore likely that the repeated invention of organized religious-type ideology says something rather unpleasant about the human mind. Maybe it says something that most human beings would rather not think about, let alone publicly acknowledge.
Maybe the default mental settings for a majority of human beings are very different from what we want to believe. Maybe most human beings are NOT thoughtful and reasonable creatures with any hard-wired concepts of what we call ‘humanity’. Maybe most humans are more like poisonous and invasive weeds than sentient apes who might evolve into something “better”. Maybe most humans, especially the so-called ‘high IQ’ morons, are actually incapable of rational thinking given that they expend their “intellect” into creating newer scams to do steal, abuse and kill others rather than elevating their own capabilities. Need I remind you that civilization caused a significant reduction in quality of life until the last 70 years.
What do you think? Comments?
Unless you have been living under a rock for the last three days you might have heard that a 20-year old guy (Adam Lanza) executed 28 people. He was only 4-5 bodies short of Seung-Hui Cho record (32 dead) set at Virginia Tech in 2007- a record which he could have easily broken given the nature of his captive audience. Having said that it is apparent that Adam was a better killer (28 dead, 1 injured) than Seung-Hi (32 dead, 17 injured). As many of you also know, more than a few politicians and media figures are trying to use this event to pass laws for more ‘gun control’ laws in the USA, hoping that the death of 6- and 7- year white kids can be used to grease the rails for passing such laws. But this post is not about whether they can succeed where previous attempts at ‘gun control’ have failed. This post is about whether even ‘strict gun control’ could stop rampage killers in the USA.
The short answer to that question is- No. Even very strict laws would not stop rampage killings in the USA. We would just see more of them committed with “illegally acquired” weapons or with other technology-based means that would cause a far higher body count. I should also point the hypocrisy of mourning the death of 20 white kids while supporting the killing many more brown kids in Pakistan as “collateral damage” of drone strikes. Understanding the reasons that make the USA uniquely susceptible to rampage killings requires to first acknowledge some of the unpleasant realities about contemporary american society.
People, unlike governments and large organisations, almost never profit from killing people publicly. The motivations of rampage killers are therefore very different from armies, police or bureaucrats. People who go on rampage killings almost always have a very deep personal and unremedied grievance with society. Going on a rampage killing is therefore just the last step in a process of progressively disenchantment with society. The seeds of that process are sown years before the final outburst and nurtured through increasingly negative experiences with society. Nobody just wakes up one day and decides that they have to execute 20-30 people by midnight that day.
Rampage killings are therefore almost never planned at a short notice. Indeed, the difference between your generic underworld-related killing and a rampage killing is that the person who commits the later has been thinking through the scenario for months, if not years. They have been playing, and replaying, that simulation in their head for weeks, months and often years. Rampage killings in the USA are therefore only partially like some tribal guy in Malaysia going ‘amok‘. While both are driven by a combination of personal insults and deprivation- the tribal guy snaps once the situation is intolerable. In contrast, his american counterpart will rarely kill immediately after his point of tolerance has been exceeded. The nature of modern life and amenities means that a person rarely has to act on his homicidal desires immediately. It is this delay between the final provocation and the outburst that makes american rampage killing very different from ‘running amok’.
Then there is the other crucial difference- education and intelligence. Have you noticed that many of the recent spree killers in USA, especially the ones with high body counts, were rather affluent, educated and intelligent. The modern american rampage killer is not some poor and dumb guy who dropped out of high school and works a minimum wage job- indeed the truly abused are too stupid and cowardly to kill lots of people. The modern american rampage killer is best understood as a reasonably privileged person someone who is lashing out at society reneging on its end of a contract he was explicitly (and implicitly) promised since he was born. A brief study of human history suggest that semi-elites who did not receive their promised share of the loot are the most dangerous adversaries of the system that defrauded them. What you are really seeing in the USA is the first overt manifestation of discontent among the younger generation of semi-elites, who rightly believe that they have been taken for a ride.
Now some of you might say- “why don’t we see such incidents in Japan, Greece, Spain or any other developed country with a high number of well-educated but unemployed or underemployed youth?”
The short answer to that question is- the peculiar nature of modern american society, institutions and beliefs. The longer answer to this question does however, once again, require us to talk about aspects of american society that most of don’t talk about or often hardly notice.
It begins with acknowledging that american society is not a society in the conventional sense of that word. It is based on conditional co-operation to attain personal gains without any real sense of social solidarity or togetherness. It has no significant and deep historical, cultural or ethnic competent. Therefore it has no organic institutions or mechanisms to keep most individuals content- especially under adverse conditions. While that was not as issue as long as the economy was growing or credit was plentiful, it does becomes an issue when the future is not looking good. Older societies such as Japan, Greece or Spain have gone through such situations in the past to have developed coping mechanisms that prevent the worst effects of poverty – though even that may not hold once things go beyond a certain point.
The educated but poor youth in those countries have a social net to fall back on. Whether it is their parents, extended family, local community, “unofficial” jobs or a government created jobs which pay enough to avoid serious social problems while providing good quality utilities (excellent and inexpensive healthcare, affordable and high-quality public transport, subsidized housing, subsidized or free higher education etc). That is why countries like Japan, Spain and Italy can have very high rates of youth underemployment and unemployment without any noticeable breakdown of civil society. Of course, youth underemployment and unemployment does fuck up the demographic profile- but that takes a couple of decades (or more) to manifest itself.
The youth in the USA have no safety net to fall back on. We do not have reliable family or extended family to provide them anywhere near the support that is the norm in many other countries and there is no sense of local community. The government is devoted to enriching a few at the expense of many and helps plutocrats, through armed force and law, to fleece everyone else. They provide costly and shitty healthcare, shitty public transport (if any), expensive housing and extremely expensive and mediocre higher education funded by non-dischargeable student loans. The system is so busy eating its seed corn to benefit the few that even the semi-elites (upper-middle class) no longer feel secure about their future. Until recently (a decade ago) the semi-elites and their progeny could look forward to a comfortable if somewhat uncertain future. That is no longer the case..
The reason you hear so much talk about growing income inequality in the last 4 years is largely due to the fact that things have become visibly and unmistakably worse for the semi-elites since 2008. They are now experiencing the same problems everyone below them has been experiencing for a couple of decades. Their belief in the validity of the previous social contract with the elites has evaporated. You can also add the ‘negative’ effects of feministic overreach and hypergamy to that- especially as far as younger men are concerned. It is therefore no surprise that you are increasingly seeing a few younger men from the semi-elite class take out their frustrations through rampage killings.
However the biggest threat to the current system does not come from the very small number of semi-elite youth shooting up movie theaters or primary schools. It comes from the much larger number who will express their frustrations through less overt but far more significant actions or strategic inaction.
What do you think? Comments?
More than a few of you might have noticed that one of the frequent commentators on this blog for the last few weeks is a person with the handle “Knee’. You might also have noticed that his questions are largely about issues related to using escorts for the first time. While I initially thought that he was just another young guy trying to get more information about using escorts etc, I now see that this is about something far deeper than escorts. So I did a little looking around on the ‘inter-tubes’ to understand why he was asking the same questions again and again. After looking through a lot of stuff, I have come to some preliminary conclusions about his predicament and here is my advice.
1. As much as I hate to say this, his traditional-minded parents are the single biggest problem in his life.
I was reading through posts on other bulletin boards to which ‘kneehow’ might have posted and one thing stood out- though he never said that openly. His relationship with his parents is strained in a very peculiar way. On one hand they have gone to great lengths to help him get the best education possible, yet on the other hand they have infantilized him (in their minds at least) to the extent he deeply resents it. While their attitudes and actions might have something to do with his chronic health issues- I could not escape the feeling that he sees their influence on his life as largely negative.
Let us specifically consider the possibility that his chronic health issues might result in his premature death. The very fact that his mother is negatively concerned about his interest in prostitutes inspite of the knowledge about his health status and general awkwardness around women is really sad. Then again, her attitudes are unfortunately common among those from Asian cultures where a narrow-minded autistic drive for money and education supersedes even the most basic human desires. Unfortunately this is also the one area where I cannot directly help him or anybody in his position.
I guess that being upfront with one of his parents might work especially if they understand the implications that their child has a chronic life-threatening health condition. Then again, the Asian ‘mind’ works in bizarre ways.
2. A lot of his other problems are due to poor self-image.
While there may be very valid reasons behind his poor-self image, trying to fix them beyond a point is worse than useless. You can certainly dress better, get a nice haircut, work out etc- but the benefits of such changes will quickly reach a point of saturation for what he really wants. There is a big gap between being a stylish and fitter version of yourself and being a male actor or model. The reality is that almost no amount of self-improvement can get him what the type of attention he so desperately wants. The alternative is to improve to the level you can and ignore the opinions and views of other people. Fact it.. in this era the opinions of others around you are largely irrelevant as almost nobody who you know will lend you 20$- even if you desperately needed it. We no longer live in a world where relatives, friends or good acquaintances can be trusted or relied upon.
So don’t bother with impressing people who don’t matter. Furthermore, there is also no point in going overboard trying to impress women when 180$/hr can get them to have great sex with you- regardless of how you look (though looking like a hideous creature might not be helpful). However I don’t think ‘kneehow’ looks like a hideous creature- so he has to learn to ignore the opinions of those who don’t matter. Never forget that the opinions of almost everyone on earth except a few people you have known for decades are worse than useless and irrelevant. Becoming a misanthrope, like me, also helps.
Now that does not mean you should act like a spontaneous and complete asshole. Just remember that you have no obligation, whatsoever, to treat ANYONE better than they treat you- regardless of how much they need you.
What do you guys think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Cat-Crawling Cuties: Dec 13, 2012 – Young, tight and sweet looking cat-crawling cuties.
Frontal Nubiles: Dec 13, 2012 – Slim, young, shaved and nude- just like I like them.
Here is a question, or two, for the ‘High IQ’ and ‘HBD-aware’ morons that populate certain regions of the blogosphere. And yes.. I have asked similar questions in previous posts. However, for reasons that one can only speculate about, posts about this topic result in interesting and entertaining replies.
If ‘High IQ’ was a useful trait and all those pseudo-scientific rantings about ‘Human Bio-Diversity’ were true- why are so many of the believers in both interested in learning game to attract women? Why are so many of them also interested in returning to stifling ‘traditional family’ values than embrace free-market competition in the sexual marketplace?
I mean.. if you have what it takes to make a woman readily drop her panties- why are you reading Roissy, Roosh or any of the other similar blogs about ‘game’ which curiously also bemoan the loss of ‘traditional’ values. Surely, autistic ‘high IQ’ STEMers would have no problem getting and retaining hot chicks to have sex with and starting a family. But is that how things roll? Why not? Was it ever the case? Why aren’t women throwing themselves at silicon-valley dweebs? Ever heard a woman proclaim her attraction to ‘brainy’ scientists, engineers or programmers- unless it somehow lead to alimony, child-support or inheritance? I can think of many examples of women cheating on their STEMer dweebs and white knights with bad boys- but does the reverse ever happen? How many of you heard about a woman pining for a ‘brainy’ guy while she is having sex with a bad boy?
Why is it that a mid-level drug dealer who might have spent years in jail can get better and more pussy than the ‘smart’ lawyer who is prosecuting or defending him in court? One has invested years of his life in ‘higher learning’ and ends up with a small incestuous ring of ball-breaking bitches who know each other. In contrast, the mid-level drug dealers gets tons of young and hot girls from diverse circles- almost without trying. If ‘High IQ’ and ‘g-loaded’ mental functioning was either real or useful- wouldn’t the opposite be true? Heck, even the median small-time drug dealer scores much more and better pussy than the median millionaire partner in a ‘big-law’ firm. This phenomenon is even more remarkable considering that the under-sexed lawyer likely has much more money than either the mid- or low- level drug dealer.
Let us consider another example. How many women want a doctor husband for anything beyond his money? Seriously.. how many women married to, or in LTRs, with highly-paid doctors would not cheat on their affluent schlubs- given the chance? Ironically these very same women will gladly hang around, have sex with and support guys in a semi-well known pop band or group. So why aren’t women attracted to contentious ‘high IQ’ men with excellent ‘future time’ orientation? So what can’t a conscientious and high-earning dweeb not get woman hot and bothered like a barely famous (or infamous) member of a local band or DJ? Could it be that the qualities exhibited by a half-decent musician, DJ or sportsman are just vastly superior, as far as women are concerned, to those exhibited by a physician.
If any of the mental abilities (or disabilities) which ‘High IQ’ and ‘HBD-aware’ morons believe are highly desirable for human survival were truly so- Wouldn’t women be attracted to them? Were they EVER attracted to them? If not- why not? I guess it is hard to see things properly when your mental model of the world depends on fervently belief in fiction.
What do you think? Comments?
One of the common beliefs that unites almost all right-wing and left-wing minded men is that marriage (or some sort of LTR with a woman) is a goal one should aspire for. As usual, I have always been a skeptic of any such idea for one simple reason.
The institution of marriage and LTRs benefit women at the expense of men.
All long-term and non-professional relationships between men and women, especially those which can be enforced in a court of law, do disproportionately benefit women at the expense of the men. Even the traditional version of marriage did benefit wives at the expense of their husbands.
At best, men in marriages become a superficially respected beast of burden with no role or life beyond their role as a ‘provider’. Many are stupid enough to actually believe in that bullshit and define their self-worth based on their ability to ‘provide’ for ‘their’ family. Many were also stupid enough to believe that they will be somehow ‘rewarded’ for that role in their old age. But how many of you have seen that work out like that?
In traditional marriages, the superficial respect and deference shown to a husband disappeared as soon as his ability to ‘provide’ money was gone- either due to age or illness. The ugly old harpie, aka his wife, just shifted her attention to her kids so that she can live off some part of their income- obtained through kindness and guilt. The old husband quickly became an inconvenience who nobody cared about. I am therefore always amused to hear religious and traditional minded morons (men) pining for a return to ‘traditional marriage’ and ‘traditional society’.
Isn’t aspiring for indentured servitude rather stupid and pathetic?
Even the so-called ‘modern marriage’ and LTRs are no better, though the later choice is often less damaging than the former. Either way, I just don’t see the point of voluntarily enslaving yourself to a nagging and aging harpie who walks all over you just to get a few scarps of mediocre sex thrown at you- once in a while. Did I mention that social acceptance, which was useful in close communities, is now worse than useless in the atomized era we live in. Any guy with a half decent source of income can always buy better and more sex than this wife can provide- minus the attitude, drama, worthless expenditures, lies, scams, insults, threats and other assorted bullshit which constantly emanates from wives and long-term girlfriends.
Now, there are those who want to marry or have LTRs for the purpose of having kids. While that sounds like a noble plan, what is in it for the guy? Maybe you like slaving away for empty expressions of gratitude. Maybe you like paying child-support.. Who knows? You can run that thankless race and enslave yourself to provide your kids with the best home, education, toys etc. But if won’t matter as your kids won’t care once they grow up. If you don’t believe my cynical assessment- just look around you at the number of lonely old men who did everything right.
Today there is no significant difference between the old age experiences of a childless person and one who sacrificed their happiness for the sake of their kids. If anything, you are likely to suffer from useless and painful medical intervention to prolong your last few months on earth. Similarly, the future of humanity and civilization is irrelevant after you are dead. Do you think it would matter if every human being died the second after your died? Do you think the universe cares about the continued existence of human beings? Can it even care?
In my opinion, the best way to live is to maximize your gain from the system. While doing so might sound self-centered, it is hard to ignore that society is constantly trying to swindle you out of your fair share. Just stop playing by the rules of someone who is trying to exploit you and look out for your own gain- irrespective of what it might do to the rest of the dysfunctional system. After all, you live only once and nothing matters once you are dead.
What do you think? Comments?
OK, here is a question which has haunted me for many years. I am sure that some of you also have had similar thoughts.
How do below-average looking women get laid?
While I have no doubt that they can (and do) find some guy to fuck them- the question still remains. How can a guy get a decent erection for penetrating a woman who is obese, ugly, older or hairy? I mean .. seriously, how can a guy get it up for such a creature unless he is fantasizing about someone else?
I am fully aware that the vagina, asshole or mouth of below-average looking women will feel very similar to hot chicks- though the fatter and hairier creatures might stink more. However since men are visual creatures, it would be hard to have sex with your eyes closed at all times. Plus your fingers and the rest of your skin will feel things such as rolls of fat or excessive body hair- even if you wanted to ignore such flaws.
while I can entertain the possibility of an inexperienced and very horny teenaged guy ignoring obvious visual flaws- what about a slightly older guy (mid-20s) who has fucked a few different women? Wouldn’t the below-average looks of a naked chick make him ‘less than enthusiastic’ about the experience, even if tried to will otherwise? Let us face it- average sex does not feel much better than jerking off to high-resolution pictures or movies with hot chicks in them.
Only skilled or enthusiastic sex with a better-than-average looking woman feels significantly better than jerking off to high-resolution porn.
One of the main reasons behind my preference of paying for sex is that escorts (at least outside the USA) are consistently better looking and more skilled than average, or below-average, women. After many years of using escorts, I find it hard to understand why any guy with a shred of self-respect would have sex with a below-average chick unless she offered to blow you while watching porn.
So why do men fuck below-average looking women? How can any self-respecting guy hang around or be seen with below-average looking woman? Don’t they hate themselves for doing such disgusting things (pun intended)?
What do you think? Comments?
This is a very funny and rather accurate song about a ‘liberated’ chick trying bisexuality in college.
As many of you know, my model of the human mind and psyche is based on a rather negative view of human beings. There are those who consider my views to be excessively pessimistic, but the course of events usually vindicates my model. With this in mind, let me tackle something that is rarely talked about in ‘polite’ circles.
What does the mental image of ‘god/s’ say about the human mind- especially as to how humans really perceive, think and feel about the world around them.
While I am an atheist, of the agnostic variety, my knowledge about various religions and religious-type belief systems is almost always superior to those who claim to practice them. With this in mind, here are some of my observations about commonalities of all belief systems based in blind and unquestioning faith.
Religions and similar belief systems are disturbingly similar- irrespective of the era of their origin or ethnicity of the people who practice them. There is not much difference between believing in faiths based on a burning bush, Kolob, Gaia or the invisible hand of the market. In each case, the ‘faithful’ are believing in something that is based on hearsay rather than something which can be measured or quantified. Belief in “credentialed experts”, “upstanding members of society” or the integrity of any profession is also a religion unless the belief can be objectively measured and quantified. Even believing in something like the social contract becomes a religious belief- if you cannot see it in action. We can therefore say that uncritical and unquestioning belief in anything is a religion, especially if people are unwilling or unable to test its authenticity.
But what about the ‘god’ or ‘gods’ that form an important part of the base narrative of all religions? What does their image, as portrayed by those belief system, say about us?
Look at the creation myths of any religion. Most of them go something like this- ‘X’ decided to create the universe and he/she/they did it through some anthropomorphic process. Even those religious faiths which accept the possibility that the universe might have just come into being spend inordinate amounts of time explaining why or how ‘god/s’ shaped things after creation. Here is my question- If you were an all-powerful and immortal being, would you really create anything at all? But lets say you did- Why create one particular version if you can create all possible versions?
In my opinion, the involvement of ‘god/s’ in creation myths is driven by a human desire to justify the existence of the physical reality they inhabit. The rationality of any given explanation is largely irrelevant to its purpose. Which brings us to the next question- Why do humans require justification for the existence of something that can be measured and quantified? How many of you have seen ‘god/s’ and how many of you can see the sun and moon? Do you require faith to believe that fire is hot or ice is cold? So why are humans obsessed with having a firm set of beliefs about how the universe came into being, or who controls it? The lives of humans are rather mundane and pathetic compared to what exist beyond our immediate surroundings- even on earth. People are born, they ‘live’ and they die- just like every other living organism. So why make up outrageous tales about how the universe was created? What is the advantage in claiming that you know the creator/s or his/her/their will? Would you disbelief in any creation story destabilize the universe? Why defend your version of the tall tale against a competing tall tale?
It comes down to celebrity name dropping and elevating your status through such an association.
Believing in any creation myth is no different from saying that you are childhood friends with a famous or powerful person. The best part of this particular scam is that nobody can verify if your famous or powerful buddy actually exists- and you can keep on pulling the scam on gullible rubes until you start doubting your own story. Belief in invisible but powerful buddies is however just the beginning of an elaborate shakedown scam, as you will soon see.
One of the other hallmarks of religions is that those believe in them anoint themselves as the ‘chosen people’. Throughout history- everybody from Hawaiian Islanders, Arabs, Jews, Western Europeans to Indians and the Han Chinese have believed that they alone were the ‘chosen people’. But what is the whole point of believing that you are among the ‘chosen ones’ if you are not better off than ‘infidels’ who believe in another god who has apparently told them that they (not your group) are the chosen people. It seems very fundamentally irrational- doesn’t it? especially given that your all-powerful but suspiciously absent pal cannot beat up the other one’s all-powerful pal. Why would grown adults believe in such utter and obvious crap?
It comes down to creating a justification for scam, theft, treachery, rape and murder.
The easiest way to get more of any physical good is to take it from someone else. But doing that to other individuals in your group might cause a lot of problems. They might stop cooperating with you and even kill you in an unguarded moment. However doing that to people outside your group is relatively much easier to get away with. Plus other members will often join in and assist your ‘actions’. Who does not want a share of the loot- even if it is unfairly distributed? Belief in a different invisible all-powerful celebrity is just an excuse to do what you really want to do in the first place. It is therefore no coincidence that the ‘god/s’ in almost all mythological narratives are portrayed as doing thing that are arbitrary, obviously cruel, grossly unethical and sometimes just plain bizarre. Contradictions in religious texts or narratives should therefore be seen as the result of appending the older fairy tale to justify a new type of crime. Apparently rewriting old narratives to make all stories coherent and tie up the loose ends is really hard.
The image of ‘god/s’ in each religious belief systems is therefore really a projection of the deepest desires of those who profess faith in that particular system.
Will write more about this topic in a future post. What do you think? Comments?