These links are NSFW.
3D Spanking Toons: April 15, 2014 – Assorted 3D spanking toons.
Spanking Art – Color: Apr 15, 2014 – Colored drawings of spankings.
Here is an interesting clip of a dance trio in the 8-year old (Jazz) category at a national competition in the USA.
What do you think? Comments?
The name of a 16th century “philosopher” known as Thomas Hobbes frequently pops up in discussions on a range of topics ranging from the best type of governance to whether a state is necessary for reasonably stable societies to exist. He is best known for writing a book known as Leviathan in which he argues for of a system in which a very small group of “special” people have a monopoly on violence. In his opinion only such a system could guarantee social stability and economic prosperity.One of his most famous quotes is about the state of human society without a top-down repressive regime.
In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
So why am I choosing him as the target of this post? Well.. there are two reasons. Firstly, he is a good example of the prototypical academic who will suck cock and write pretty lies for his paymasters. Secondly, his reputation needs to be demolished to the point where nobody wants to remember him, quote him or even try to recycle any of his ideas.
Many of you might wonder how something like this can be done. Wouldn’t irreversibly tarnishing the image of a long dead, semi-famous, white intellectual be hard. My answer is- not really. Think of all the famous white people who stood behind the idea of eugenics in the early 20th century. How many can you name or, more importantly even want to remember? Similarly the memories of even more famous people like Hitler, who was once widely admired in pre-WW2 UK and USA, are now irreversibly associated with evil. To put it another way, engineering large changes in the public images of famous (or semi-famous) people is actually quite easy.
Moving back to the topic at hand, let us start by looking at his early life and see if it provides any obvious clues as to why Hobbes became a servile cocksucker for the elites of his era.
Born prematurely when his mother heard of the coming invasion of the Spanish Armada, Hobbes later reported that “my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear.” His childhood is almost a complete blank, and his mother’s name is unknown. His father, also named Thomas, was the vicar of Charlton and Westport. Thomas Hobbes Sr. had an older brother, Francis Hobbes, who was a wealthy merchant with no family of his own. Thomas Hobbes, the younger, had one brother Edmund who was about two years older than he. Thomas Sr. abandoned his wife, two sons and a daughter, leaving them in the care of his brother, Francis, when he was forced to flee to London after being involved in a fight with a clergyman outside his own church. Hobbes was educated at Westport church from the age of four, passed to the Malmesbury school and then to a private school kept by a young man named Robert Latimer, a graduate of the University of Oxford. Hobbes was a good pupil, and around 1603 he went up to Magdalen Hall, which is most closely related to Hertford College, Oxford.
Hobbes was not born into a rich family and his early life was somewhat precarious. However, like many of the middle and upper-middle class of today, he had access to centers of credentialism and sophistry aka universities. It is therefore very likely that Hobbes always saw the attainment of elite-approved credentials and subservience to their power as the only realistic way to maintain a somewhat nice and stable lifestyle.
Everything that Hobbes ever said, wrote or argued about must therefore be seen through the lens of his own timid, conformist and sophistic persona. To put it another way, he was an enthusiastic mercenary for anybody who held out the promise of a bit more money, social status and a nice sinecure.
Now let us move on to a critical analysis of the validity of his writings. But before we do that, let me quickly talk about why destroying his reputation is necessary- even 300 years after his death. The arguments put forth in the writings of Hobbes are one of the foundations of modern CONservativism and many other -isms. They, in both their original as well as recycled forms, have been used to justify a variety of socio-economic systems that have brought nothing but impoverishment, extreme misery, starvation and disease to the vast majority of people while greatly enriching a few lucky sociopaths.
One the central arguments in his writings is the idea that all people are highly immoral and only an absolute monopoly of violent force in the hands of a few chosen ones can keep society stable. In some respects his ideas are remarkably similar to those used to justify Chinese-style Legalism. But are most people highly immoral and does monopolizing violent force in the hands of a chosen few really improve the living standards of most people in that society?
While I am certainly not a believer in the myth of noble savages, there is a large body of evidence that hunter-gatherers living in non-precarious environments were not especially avaricious, inhospitable or murderous. Indeed, the lack of centralized authority in such systems makes peaceful inter-group cooperation, diplomacy and exchanges more necessary than it would otherwise be. So the idea that most people will trick, steal from and murder each other without someone in charge is a sophistic lie, projection of the thinker’s own mindset or likely both.
And this brings us to the second part of that particular argument- namely that giving the monopoly of violence to a few “especially suitable” people will make somehow society more stable and better. But how can we decide who is suitable to wield such power and how do we know they are competent? Is there any evidence that supposedly “legitimate” kings are any more competent that those who became kings through less “legitimate” means? How can we define the competence to “rule” when most societies with kings or their secular equivalents (dictators and leaders of one-party systems) are really bad places to be born, or live, in- at least for the vast majority of people?
I am sure that most of you are aware that the material living standards of “civilized” people have been consistently and significantly lower than their hunter-gatherer counterparts except for the last 100-odd years. Moreover the general rise of living standards over the last hundred years are linked to the rise of technology and simultaneous decline of outright autocracy.
The two central foundations of Hobbes worldview therefore have no basis in reality. They do however tell us a lot about his worldview and those of his paymasters.
But why would Hobbes spend so much time and effort on creating this myth? There are those who would like to believe that his worldview was simply a product of the environment he grew up in. I am not so sure and here is why. His early life history suggests that Hobbes had no useful skills beyond learning, conforming and pleasing his superiors. It is also obvious that he always wanted a comfortable and stable lifestyle. So how does a reasonably clever and timid man make a stable and comfortable living in the pre-industrial era?
Obtaining royal (or elite patronage) was the only realistic and feasible occupational choice for a person of Hobbes ability, temperament and desires. In other words, he had to choice to suck elite cock and live reasonably well or not do so and live like an average (poor) person.
Now.. I am not criticizing his decision to suck elite cock to make a stable, decent and trouble-free living. Pretty much anybody in his situation would have done the same. My real problem with Hobbes is that his works are still seen as serious and objective philosophical insights rather than as literary blowjobs to his masters. Doing so is the equivalent of using the collected reminiscences of a house slave as a defense and justification for the institution of slavery.
Hobbes was essentially a clever house slave who got better food, clothing and living quarters because of his ability to flatter his master, justify his brutality and constantly tell him how all those other “lazy and evil” slaves would be lost without the “benevolent guidance” of his master.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Nubile Cuties: Apr 11, 2014 – Slim, young and nubile cuties.
More Nubile Cuties: Apr 11, 2014 – More slim, young and nubile cuties.
Here is an amazing spoof of your generic mass media ad on YouTube. Seldom have I seen a spoof capture the essence of its target so perfectly. It also shows the very american emptiness, superficial cheerfulness, misdirection, other assorted lies and pretty presentation that attempts to hide the banality of evil.
What do you think? Comments?
Here is a new clip that mocks beta orbiters from the second season of “Inside Amy Schumer”. I found this to be one of the better mainstream depictions of this sad, and widespread, phenomena. The clip is especially accurate at showing the derision and contempt felt by women towards their beta orbiters, as well as how they manipulate guys to do stuff for them.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Amateur Beach Cuties: Apr 7, 2014 – Slim, cute and nekkid amateur beach cuties.
More Amateur Beach Cuties: Apr 7, 2014 – More slim, cute and nekkid amateur beach cuties.
I am sure that most of you heard about how Brendan Eich had to resign as the CEO of Mozilla because of a thousand dollar donation to supporters of an anti-gay constitutional amendment aka Prop 8 in California. Some in the “mainstream” media and reactionary blogosphere see his forced resignation as a symptom of political correctness run amok. I see it very differently.
In my opinion, Brendan Eich got what he deserved.
First, let us be clear about what Proposition 8 (2008) was really about. It was about denying the right of adult persons to marry somebody of the same sex AND effectively nullifying all the gay marriages that had occurred in California since June 16, 2008. Prop 8 was about denying basic civil rights to a category of people in the 21st century based on one popular interpretation of a committee-approved compilation of a set of books allegedly written by some guys 2-3 centuries prior to that meeting and containing what some believe to be factually accurate accounts of the life and times of a reformist Rabbi who supposedly lived in 1st century Judea.
Prop 8 was about treating someone as a second- or third-class human based on one particular interpretation of an adult fairy tale.
Now some of you might say- but isn’t democracy about the opinions of the numerical majority. Well.. if we had used majority opinion to guide the creation and implementation of laws and rules, slavery would still be legal in the USA. Laws and rules in modern nation states are about keeping society functional and preventing tyranny of the majority or powerful minority. They are not supposed to stroke the egos of zealots who believe in their special connection to imaginary sky-dudes or the voices in their heads. Laws and rules are about maintaining a degree of fairness and rationality in society, or at least the illusion of their existence.
And there is one more little known, but important, fact about this particular case. People inside and outside Mozilla knew that Eich had donated money to support Prop 8 since 2012. So his resignation in 2014 was not the result of somebody leaking a closely guarded secret or a hatchet job by “gay activists”. His views on gay marriage and gays in general became relevant only after he became CEO and, therefore, the public face of Mozilla.
The combination of enhanced public visibility and additional administrative power made people take a second (and much longer) look at his personal views and convictions.
Some CONservatives say that his forced resignation is a sign of the decline of power of the 1st amendment to protect free speech. Oddly, these same people have no issues with corporations firing employees for publicly expressing their desire to form worker unions. CONservatives also believe that unlimited and secret financial contributions to political parties is an expression of free speech rather than open subversion of the democratic process. They also have no problems with the government violating the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments as long as those affected are either non-white or poor whites.
Brendan Eich, like all CONservatives, wanted to deny legal equality to a subgroup of people based on his personal religious beliefs. He just chose the wrong group and wrong time in history to get away with it and consequently got thrown under the metaphorical bus.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Slim Cuties: Apr 4, 2014 – Slim nekkid cuties.
More Slim Cuties: Apr 4, 2014 – More slim and nekkid cuties.
Even More Slim Cuties: Apr 4, 2014 – Even more slim and nekkid cuties.
In my previous post in this series, I had said:
The massey sahib mindset is not restricted to Indians and milder forms of this mindset are actually quite common in many developed countries- especially in people of the upper-middle class persuasion.
I shall now explain what was implied in that statement. But before we go further, let me clarify something. While you can readily find critiques of the Indian mindset and behavior patterns on the intertubes, or in “real” life, almost all of those making them share one common delusion- namely, that the pathology they are talking about is somehow uniquely Indian. However that is not true and every pathology you can see in Indians is also present in other racial and ethnic groups- albeit with different external manifestations. The converse is also true and I have no illusions about the inherent “goodness” of Indians. However a lot of people are unable (or unwilling) to see things for what they really are.
Here are a few brief examples to illustrate that point. We associate genocide with the regimes of people like Hitler and Stalin, when the biggest (number, percentage and impact) genocides in human history were committed by the Spanish in South and Central America and the Anglos in North America. Similarly the Irish Famine (which was actually a genocide) was no different in relative size and scope from what occurred in Ukraine under Stalin. Then there is the issue of the late Victorian holocausts. Did I mention Slavery, Jim Crow and the Ongoing War on Drugs?
The idea that one group of human beings is “better” than others is therefore extremely delusional and not supported by even a cursory reading of historical evidence.
But what does this insight have to do with the subject of this post? Well.. a lot! Massey sahibs and their white counterparts (upper-middle class types) clearly have the resources and mental apparatus to read and understand history. They also have the mental ability to understand how the world around them works, so far as to realize that many of the people who employ them are mentally inferior to them and highly dependent on their abilities. Yet the majority of Massey sahibs and upper-middle class whites are happy to be house slaves and mercenaries for their “masters”.
But why? Why would any half-intelligent person enthusiastically slave away for less competent idiots- who in many cases gained wealth by an accident of birth?
Conventional explanations for this phenomena range from the fear of losing what little they already posses to competition from other brown-nosers. While such “common sense” explanations might sound rational at first glance, they are just clever ways to avoid the central question- Why would a smart person enthusiastically slave for somebody who could throw them on the street on a whim?
Here is my theory- It is really about what their jobs and vocations allow them to do or get away with.
The job functions of Massey sahibs and upper-middle class types almost always involve abusing, exploiting and impoverishing the masses on behalf of their “masters”. They are in it for the power to abuse, exploit and degrade other human beings. Employment by a rich person to do so allows them to indulge their deepest and darkest desires while being able to maintain a ‘normal’ self-image. They have no interest in the truth, reality or anything else that could spoil the party. They choose to believe what they believe because it allows them to go home after a long day of fucking over other people and still feel ‘normal’. Some even fantasize that such displays of loyalty to their “masters” might one day make them more equal to their “masters”. In many respects, this mindset is not too different from the one exhibited by working class whites.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Selfies: Mar 26, 2014 – Young and nekkid chicks photographing themselves.
More Selfies: Mar 26, 2014 – More young and nekkid chicks photographing themselves.
The idea that profit-driven capitalism is the only system capable of delivering sustained improvement in living standards is a deeply cherished belief of many Americans, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Some of you might even argue that the dissolution of the Soviet Union is definitive evidence of that ‘there is not other way’. Of course, doing so would require us to ignore that state communism did take Russia from a chaotic 19th century society to a superpower within 30 years, inspite of the massive damages inflicted by Stalin’s paranoia and WW2.
We would also have to ignore that the massive and unprecedented increase in the standard of living in the USA from the mid-1930s to mid-1980s was largely financed by direct and indirect government spending. Imagine an American middle-class without the New Deal, WW2-related spending, GI Bill, Space Race and all other Cold War related spending. But this is not a post about which flavor of capitalism is better than which flavor of state communism. Instead I will try to show how one of the fundamental proxy measures of success in capitalism (and state communism) eventually up destroying them.
I am certainly not the first to point out that monetary profit is fundamentally a measure of theft from other people or groups. However unlike many others, I am more interested in its downstream and knockon effects than the morality and mindset of those who benefit from it. There is also the interesting issue of why capitalism seems to “work” as long as it is kept under control, but becomes destructive to almost everybody once it is unregulated. In my opinion, all of this comes down to difference between profit and gain.
Some of you will counter by saying that “but aren’t profit and gain two words for the same thing”. Well.. not quite and let me explain. We use the word profit to denote a situation where one party benefits at the expense of another party. It is fundamentally impossible for all the parties involved in a profitable transaction to gain from it and is therefore a zero-sum interaction. Now contrast that an interaction where some parties gain more than others but pretty much everybody gets a pretty good and fair deal. Still confused? Let us look at some examples.
Consider the case of a generic multinational corporation which has managed to increase its reported profit by off-shoring its manufacturing base to a low-income country. So who are the winners and losers in this type of scenario? The biggest winners in this scenario are almost always the top-level management, large stockholders and those involved in the financial (and other) intermediation necessary to make it happen. Minor winners include the poorly paid workers in the low-income countries now working at a slightly better paying job and the consumers who benefit from a slightly cheaper product. So who are the big losers in this transaction? Well.. everybody else- starting from the unemployed workers to local business who depended on those workers and the local governments who depended on tax revenue from those workers, business and the corporation.
Now consider the case of a company, business or an institution developing a new way to fulfill some human need or desire. How many people were negatively affected by the development of computer technology? What about antibiotic drugs? What about better automobiles or airplanes? What about effective vaccines for diseases like polio? In each of the above examples, pretty much everybody benefited (or gained) far more than they lost. Moreover each of these products increased the size of the economy without a significant increase in income inequality. That is the important, and crucial difference, between profit and gain. You might also notice that my description of gain is pretty close to most peoples mental image of functional capitalism.
So why is gain-based capitalism in full retreat and why has its profit-based form taken over?
It comes down to concentration of power in the hands of a few large players or oligopolization. Capitalism, or indeed any other system, works best when there are many and almost equally capable competing players in the system. That is also why capitalism seems to function pretty well when a new area opens up for business. But sooner or later you will end up with a handful of major players who will dominate the new area.
But why would narrowing the list of players favor profit over gain. Well.. once again there are many interrelated reasons but they all arise from one characteristic common to all large human organisations- who runs them. The higher levels of large and established organisations are almost always dominated by sociopaths who have learned to climb the pyramid by stepping on others. These climbers often have no understanding of what it takes to make the enterprises they are leading function properly, nor are they interested in making them function properly.
The mindset of these sociopaths is dominated by two interlinked desires. Firstly, they want to subjugate and impoverish everyone else. Secondly, they want to do so while basking in material comfort. They have no interest, desire or even the mental ability to be anything else. These billionaires, “business leaders”, CEOs, board members, banksters, head honchos etc are functionally identical to parasites or viruses in that they both lack a purpose for existence and an internal ability to restrain themselves. They survive and thrive by exploiting the structure of the system and eluding systemic attempts to destroy them. But why are they so interested in generating more profit and suppressing gain? The answer to that question lies in what happens to monetary profit once it is generated.
Monetary profit, unlike gain, is almost never reinvested back into the system. In other words, all money made as profit exits the functional economy and impoverishes everybody else.
Only sovereign governments can replenish this supply of money. It is therefore not surprising that billionaires and other rich people spend lots of their time making sure that the government does not replenish this supply or that they get most of that replenishment. It is not about more money for them, as much as it is about less money for everybody else. Of course, it certainly helps that they have a whole bunch of morons to do their dirty work.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Nubile Cuties: Mar 23, 2014 – Slim and young nekkid cuties.
More Nubile Cuties: Mar 23, 2014 – More slim and young cuties.
A few months ago, I wrote a post about the questionable treatment of an Indian diplomat in the USA with special reference to the public reaction of certain people of Indian descent to that event. In that post, I also talked a bit about concepts such as ‘gungadin’ and ‘sepoy’- and the key difference between them. This post goes into a bit more depth on the phenomena of ‘gungadins’ and one of its more common subtypes – the ‘massey sahib’.
But before we go further, let us quickly define both concepts and highlight the slight (but important) differences between them. A ‘gungadin’ is somebody who is servile to anyone with a white skin under the expectation that doing so will somehow get him a vaguely promised reward or acceptance as an equal in the distant future. A ‘massey sahib’ is basically similar to a ‘gungadin’, but has a few extra distinguishing characteristics. For one, a ‘massey sahib’ fancies himself as white-’lite’ and will go to considerable and often comical lengths to demonstrate his white cultural credentials. Secondly, a ‘massey sahib’ is almost always fairly well-educated and well read, but is unable or unwilling to think critically. He will always support the view of “famous” white men even if they themselves make a 180 turn away from their old views.
So why do whites like to keep ‘massey sahibs’ around- at least until they become too inconvenient? It comes down to the utility of ‘massey sahibs’ as tools. In case you are still wondering about my choice of the name for this class of “individuals”, here is the wiki link: Massey Sahib
Set in pre-independence India, Massey sahib is an Indian who converts to Christianity for the sole purpose of becoming white-’lite’. To that end, he works hard to do fulfill the ambition of his white boss even if that means breaking the laws he is supposed to uphold. The white boss knows about his double dealings but ignores them in a manner that affords him (but not Massey) plausible deniability. Towards the end of the story, the scams are exposed and Massey becomes the scapegoat and is cast aside by his white boss who acts surprised and disappointed. The effects of the investigation disrupt Massey’s life and lead him to kill another Indian in a fit of rage. This only worsens Masseys situation and inspite of the advice of his now ex- white boss, he chooses not to plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter since he expects his white boss and white “friends” to magically intervene and set him free. I guess you can figure out how the story ends.
So what does this story have to do with people of Indian descent who live, or were born, in western countries today? Well.. a significant number and percentage of Indians, especially those who came to north america before the mid 1990s, are (for all practical purposes) ‘massey sahibs’. Now some of you might try to defend them by saying that they became ‘massey sahibs’ for purely economic reasons- but I disagree.
People who crawl and grovel when you ask them to bend a little are motivated by far more than simple economic calculations. This is doubly true when they did not have to bend in the first place.
Let me show you what I am talking about with a real-life example of one. I found this interview on the ‘Chemical and Engineering News’ website – Link. Excerpts from this interview will be quoted to illustrate my points.
First the extended title..
Sunil Kumar, Chemical Industry Medalist, Chemistry and opportunity in the U.S. aided his climb from poverty to executive suite
Altruistic white man gave poverty-stricken brown guy a chance out of the goodness of his heart. *sarcasm*
Although trained as a mechanical engineer, Kumar found that he liked the products of chemistry and had a knack for translating them into marketing successes. That talent, over the course of a 41-year career, helped India-born Kumar rise from near penniless immigrant to the U.S. to high-level executive at the tire maker Firestone (and later Bridgestone), the roofing supplier GAF, and ISP.
This is a repetition of the point made in the extended title, but with more biographical details.
Kumar, 64, continues his love affair with chemistry today through Wembly Enterprises, a family investment vehicle that acquires chemistry-based businesses. His is a rags-to-riches story that could only have happened in America.
Actually that is not true for reasons we will get into in a moment, but why let facts get in the way of feel good propaganda.
He headed for the U.S. right after graduating from the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), in Madras, with a degree in mechanical engineering. “In the early 1970s, India was a bad place to be,” Kumar recalls. “There was not much encouragement for private enterprise, and most people got jobs with government entities. That was not my cup of tea at all.”
So let us be clear about one thing. This guy was educated at a pretty elite institution in India and was certainly not from some poverty-stricken or uneducated family. While it is true that India in the 1970s was not a great place for anybody with ambition, the idea that he would have lived in poverty if he had not moved to the USA is false.
Kumar was then and still is a passionate admirer of what he calls “the American civilization.” He defines that civilization as a place where government mostly works and people who work hard can do well.
In the 1970s and perhaps the 1980s, the USA was still a reasonably meritocratic place- especially if you were not Black or Mexican. But that still true? In the 1970s the USA also had far fewer people (by number and percentage) in jail than the USSR (Russia)- but is that still true? Things change..
But the more important question is- Did he have to profess that belief to succeed in a meritocracy? A system that is highly meritocratic would not require you to be a congenital brown noser- which he clearly is, and we will see more evidence of that in a moment.
He secured a spot in the M.B.A. program at the University of Louisiana, Monroe. Key to his decision to go there was the financial support he got from the university. “Graduate assistantships are typical in science but rare in business school. They made an exception for me; it was the break I needed,” Kumar says. Separately, he snagged a job at the 7-Eleven near the campus to earn the money he needed to repay his father for the plane ticket. Working at 7-Eleven taught him how to relate to people. The blue-collar workers who came into the store “were fabulous, down-to-earth people with no pretensions,” Kumar recalls. Working at the store also taught him that management systems often function better in the U.S. than in India. “At the store, there was a system for inventory, pricing, and handling customers. The reason 7-Eleven worked well is that it had a way to get products and customers in and out.”
Isn’t it odd that a guy whose entire existence in India revolved around getting away from the teeming brown masses was so willing to kiss the average white guys ass? Why? More importantly, how many of his current acquaintances are blue-collar white guys? Guess how that changed.. But the best part is towards the end of that interview piece.
Although India also offers better business opportunities than when he left it, they still can’t compare with the opportunities available in the U.S., Kumar maintains. He spends part of his time as an adviser to the Indian energy and chemical giant Reliance Industries, providing advice on elastomers plants now under construction in India.
Fair enough.. he prefers to live in the USA where he spent most of his life.
And although India graduates large numbers of engineers, most, Kumar contends, aren’t well-trained. “There must be something wrong when a country that graduates 300,000 engineers per year gets no Nobel Prizes, gets few patents, and has only a $1.8 trillion economy,” Kumar says. He sees no need for the U.S. to churn out engineers to better compete with India. Although the U.S. can always stand to improve its educational system, Kumar says, the country already “has more than enough brilliant scientists, inventors, and chemists.”
Now wait a minute.. if Indian engineers and chemists are not well trained or incompetent – what about him? I mean.. the interview does state that he came from India. Was he somehow special or is he seeing himself as white-’lite’? And if the american system has always been good at producing enough brilliant scientists, inventors, and chemists- why did they want him in the first place? Something does not add up. But we still have not reached the best bit of his brown nosing.
He also continues to be a huge believer in America. “I wouldn’t say that a person born in America is superior to a person not born in America. God creates everyone equal,” Kumar says. But a person who is born in the U.S., or grows up, lives, and works in the country, “becomes superior after a number of years because America’s system is exceptional.” As Kumar sees it, America “is a new civilization, and it is more than just immigrants coming here and finding jobs.” The country, he declares, “creates spectacular successes.”
Here is my problem with this shill. Does his mental model hold true if you are an enterprising Black, Mexican or even a working class white guy? While the last class did somewhat OK will the mid-1980s, their fortunes have progressively deteriorated to the point where they are not much better than the other two? So what changed and why?
While the american system does manage to make its 1% (or more precisely its 0.1%) richer with every passing day, it has clearly failed the other 99%. Sunil Kumar’s strategy for success is based on kissing the behind of every rich white guy he came across and then slaving away for them, in exchange for a few bones and being treated as white-’lite’ until he becomes inconvenient for his white superiors. He went so far only because the real decline of american chemical manufacturing started towards the end of his corporate career allowing him to escape with a measure of dignity and money. His early career shift into the management side of that sector also partially protected him from career ending job loss.
In the upcoming part of this series, I will try to explore the mindset and world view that creates massey sahibs. As you will see, the massey sahib mindset is not restricted to Indians and milder forms of this mindset are actually quite common in many developed countries- especially in people of the upper-middle class persuasion.
What do you think? Comments?
The final fate of flight MH370 is still a mystery. So far, we have not been able to locate either the wreckage or landing site of that Malaysia airlines Boeing 777 airliner. Since my previous post on this topic, two interesting facts have come to light.
1. Somebody in the cockpit of that airplane altered the flight path program after the aircraft took off from Kuala Lumpur.
2. Some residents on Kuda Huvadhoo island in the Dhaalu atoll group of the Maldives reported seeing a large low flying jet at around 6:15 am on March 8.
Both new pieces of information got me thinking about an unfortunate, but likely, explanation for the final fate of flight MH370 which can also explain some of the peculiar circumstances surrounding that its disappearance. As many of you know, my previous post had postulated that MH370 flew through the outlying islands of the Maldive island chain.
A route from the last known radar contact of that airplane to the outlying islands of the Maldives would keep the aircraft out of the airspace of nations such as India and Sri Lanka. It helps that most of airspace over the Maldivian island chain is free of radars- civilian or military. The time when that large low flying airliner appeared over the Dhaalu atoll group in the Maldives also matches the expected ETA of a low and slow flying 777 airliner.
But what was the final destination of those in control of that airplane?
According to link # 2- “Eyewitnesses from the Kuda Huvadhoo concurred that the aeroplane was travelling North to South-East, towards the Southern tip of the Maldives”. Where could a pilot travelling South-East of that island land, especially given that he has less than 2 hours of fuel on board at that time? Well.. he could have always turned north and landed in Male or on any of the major airstrips in the Maldives- but it is rather clear from his flight path that he was not interested in doing that.
We are now left with only a few possibilities such as the american base on Diego Garcia, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles or some airstrip in Madagascar. But why would someone who hates attention want to land on tourist heavy compact islands like Mauritius, Reunion or Seychelles. While parts of Madagascar are remote, what would motivate somebody to land on that impoverished island?
And this brings us to the possibility that the person flying that airplane might have attempted to land on one of the long airstrips at the secretive US navy facility on Diego Garcia. Remember- “attempted” not “succeeded”. But why do I believe that MH370 did not succeed landing on that island?
Let me put it this way- we would have heard about it a week ago. Since Malaysia is a friendly (or at least non-adversarial) country, the US navy would have almost certainly let a damaged or otherwise stricken airliner land on that island. Nor was that aircraft carrying anything valuable or secretive enough to merit keeping its landing secret.
So why did that aircraft not land on Diego Garcia?
Here is my theory. The people on Diego Garcia were spooked by a large, low flying, unidentified (and likely) hijacked aircraft approaching the island. They might have tried to contact it a few times and either failed or become more fearful with each response. Perhaps they thought that they were in the midst of a mini-9/11. At some moment in time, somebody made a decision to launch SAMs at that aircraft to bring it down. You can guess what happened next..
But why would the USA try to cover up such an incident?
Well.. there are two reasons. Firstly- that base is remote enough to allow the USA to cover up an airliner shootdown over water for some time. Secondly- they probably realized within a few hours that most passengers on that airplane were Chinese nationals. It does not take much imagination to realize the very real diplomatic consequences of shooting down a plane full of Chinese nationals, especially if the circumstances surrounding that shooting are nebulous.
Here is a similar incident from over two decades ago – Iran Air Flight 655
What do you think? Comments?