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?
These links are NSFW.
Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – Slim, young and pretty nekkid cuties.
More Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – More slim, young and nekkid cuties.
Even More Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – Even more slim, young and nekkid cuties.
Yet More Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – Yet more slim, young and nekkid cuties.
The mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has become one of the most closely followed news stories of the last few days. While plane disappearances are not unheard of, even in the post-WW2 era, they have become increasingly rare and almost never occur to aircraft as large as the Boeing-777.
I have been meaning to publish an article on this bizarre incident for the last 2-3 days, but was unable to do so because of the constant (and often contradictory) bits of news coming out of multiple “unnamed” sources. Well, things have changed in the last 12-odd hours and we now have a somewhat coherent (but still unclear) picture of what might have happened to that flight. So here is a list of what we know, or don’t know, with a high degree of certainty.
1] The communication gear in that aircraft was able to return a satellite ping as late as 8:11 am Malaysian time on the day it disappeared, or about 7 hours after its transponder stopped broadcasting. This implies that the aircraft was structurally intact and likely flying for about 7 hours after its transponder signal disappeared.
This bit of evidence immediately suggest two things. Firstly, the aircraft in question was being deliberately flown either by a human or computer for an extended period of time. Secondly, whoever was flying that aircraft was not interested in definitely not interested in crashing it and killing everyone on it, as they could have done that almost instantly. Nor were they interested in crashing that aircraft into some building or structure, as that would also have occurred within a few hours. Whoever pulled it off had a well thought out plan.
2] The ACARS system was disabled minutes before the transponder went off air and just before the plane was supposed to enter Vietnamese airspace. This chain of events and the timeline also suggests that the diversion of MH370 was deliberate. The last routine sounding verbal communication from MH370 occurred after the ACARS was disabled but before the transponder went dark. It is also worth noting that the pilot of another commercial plane who was trying to contact that flight half an hour after it “disappeared” claims to have heard some mumbling before the transmission cut.
This suggests that conscious humans were present in the cockpit for at least thirty minutes after the transponder went blank. If the plane was malfunctioning, either of the two pilots in the cockpit could have easily contacted nearby airports or aircraft through one of the many redundant communication systems on that airplane and requested assistance. But they did not do so. Why not?
3] The most mysterious part of the MH370 story is the motive, or to be more accurate- the lack of one to date. If the pilots or whoever was flying that plane was simply interested in killing people by either simply crashing it or crashing it into something, we would have heard about it by now. Similarly the idea that somebody stole an airplane as large and specialized as the 777 for selling its parts on the black market does not make sense, as they are far less riskier ways to steal from your employers inventory.
It is also very odd that no organisation, group or individuals has come forward and taken credit for this disappearance. We have not heard about any list of demands or proof of life for the passengers on that airplane. This is especially odd since we live in an era where the ubiquity of the internet, social media and smartphones make it incredibly easy for any moron with half a brain could have easily done so.
4] The current location of that airliner is the final part of this mystery. But before we go there, let us be clear about one thing- whoever was flying that airplane had thought this out in some detail and intended to survive the landing. With that in mind, let us look at the two (or three) possible parts of the world it could have landed in. The cropped graphic (below) from WaPo is especially good for illustrating what I am going to talk about.
The southern Indian ocean is remarkably lacking in both islands and lightly guarded airstrips. The only islands, or island groups, with a functional airstrips are Christmas island, Cocos (Keeling) island, the american base at Diego Garcia, a few airstrips in the Maldives and a few more in Seychelles, Mauritius and Reunion island. We can also add Madagascar to that list- but my point is that pretty much every airstrip in any of those islands is highly commercial and landing on them would attract a lot of “unwanted” attention. It is possible that to land in some remote part of the Western Australian Outback, but even that would attract lots of attention from locals.
The second, and somewhat more plausible, flight path takes the airplane over countries such as Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, India, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. But that route requires the plane to cross many highly surveilled national boundaries and would attract tons of unwanted attention by the military assets stationed near those borders. To put it another way, keeping that flight path secret would require the implicit or accidental cooperation of people in many different countries.
There is however a third, and so far largely ignored, flight path. What if whoever was flying that plane wanted to land it somewhere in east-Africa or the Arabian peninsula? They could have chosen a route that went south of Sri Lanka but north of Diego Garcia- perhaps through a sparsely populated part of the Maldive island chain. From there they could reach an airstrip in the horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti South Sudan, Sudan etc) or a nearby part of the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen, the interior of Oman or Saudi Arabia). Perhaps they could have even flown as far as the southern parts of Iran or Pakistan.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Amateur Cuties on the Beach: Mar 8, 2014 – Slim amateur cuties on the beach.
Vintage Spanking Photos: Mar 8, 2014 – From the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.
More Vintage Spanking Photos: Mar 8, 2014 – More from the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.
Here is a clip of a very funny skit from the upcoming season 2 of ‘Inside Amy Schumer’. I found her satirical portrayal of the average white american girl to be especially dead on.
And here is a similar clip from season 1.
What do you think? Comments?
One idea that has gained popularity among american intellectuals of the liberal persuasion within the last 10-15 years goes something like this:
The dominance of conservatives politicians in southern (and some non-southern flyover) states is due to their success at conning working class whites into voting against their own economic interest.
To put it another way, liberals believe that working class whites are decent human beings who are repeatedly tricked into voting against their best economic interests. This belief is the basis of books such as What’s the Matter with Kansas?. Many liberals believe that the white working class of southern (and some flyover) states left democrats because the later became too “culturally distant” and have not been able to provide enough decent jobs in those states. But do those explanations stand up to rational scrutiny? Or is there another far more obvious, but unmentionable, reason behind the rightward shifts in southern states?
Let us first examine the soundness of cultural explanations for the ascendancy of conservatives in the post-1980 (actually post-1968) south. The conventional explanations for this phenomena invoke public reactions to a series of socio-legal changes that occurred between 1955-1980. These include civil rights legislation, legalized abortion, sexual revolution and mass entry of women in the work force. Liberals want to believe that these changes somehow alienated a majority of “good” Americans living in those states.
While I do agree that these changes were large and controversial, it is worth noting that the end results of their implementation has been fairly uniform across the USA. The percentages and incidences of single motherhood in Kansas or Alabama are not that different those in Washington or Oregon. Similarly the percentages of blacks who vote in southern states today are not much different from those who live in the much less shitty coastal ones. Nor are fat white working class women in Alabama or Mississippi any less sexually promiscuous than their counterparts in Massachusetts or Maine. My point is- the progressive socio-legal changes which started in the 1960s have been far more uniform in their effect across the USA than most people realize or want to believe.
The idea that working class whites in the south are trying to preserve the old ways does not hold water simply because those ways no longer exist, except perhaps in the fringes, of those societies.
So why do these morons keep on voting people who promise to brings back things that are dead and beyond any hope of resurrection? Let us consider another angle, namely that the rightward drift of the south is a reaction to the loss of traditional blue-collar jobs. While there is some validity to the idea that people who lose their previously stable and well-paying livelihoods might turn to anti-establishment ideologies, it does not two aspects of the rightward movements of southern states. Firstly- why don’t north-eastern and mid-western states, who also lost a lot of blue-collar jobs, elect the same kind of people as those below the Mason-Dixon line? Secondly- why do southerners keep on electing politicians who actively undermine their economic interests?
Therefore the argument that southern working class whites drifted to right-wing politicians because of economic neglect by more left-wing ones also does not hold much water, unless we assume they are mentally retarded.
While it is certainly plausible that southern working-class whites are intellectually inferior to their counterparts in other parts of the country, it is also highly unlikely that most are mentally retarded. And this brings me to the history of their voting patterns- specifically how they switched their voting patterns after 1968. As many of you know, prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the democratic party had no problem getting the votes of working-class whites in southern states. Of course, that was also the era when the Democrats (and not the Republicans) were the party of American Apartheid. The passage of the Civil Rights Act under LBJ changed that forever and permanently antagonized the southern white working-class voter.
But why would simply giving equal rights to blacks cause such a large negative reaction among working-class whites in the south?
It is not as if equality is a finite resource whose distribution makes it scarcer. So what is going on? Why would legal remedies to end racial discrimination evoke such strong reactions among southern working-class whites? Is there a better explanation this seemingly irrational behavior.
Well.. there is, but that explanation requires the observer to abandon certain preconceptions about what working-class whites are and are not. Too often, polite public discourse tries to portray working-class whites as honest and decent human beings who just happen to be gullible enough to fall for racist demagogues. But what if that is not true? What if opportunist politicians are merely saying out what their constituents really believe? What if the identity and self-image of those subhumans is principally based on the constant abuse of blacks and the zeros-um exploitation of each other? What if all of the attempts by those subhumans to justify conservative beliefs through selective readings of religious scriptures are based on their true desires? What if all of their pathetic attempts to fellate the rich, even if they crap on them, are based in their world view?
My point is that the behavior of southern working-class whites is far easier to understand (and model) if we assume that it is the external manifestations of their mental world.
And this brings us to the question about how to fix that problem. The conventional liberal view is that more education and exposure to a more cosmopolitan world will somehow make those subhumans less so. However many real world indices suggest that education or exposure to a better way does not make them less subhuman. There is however another path to achieve a final and lasting solution to this problem, especially if we are willing to consider the possibility that these subhumans (or their progeny) are functionally incapable of ever being human.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Amateur Beach Cuties: Mar 2, 2014 – Slim and young amateur cuties on the beach.
More Amateur Beach Cuties: Mar 2, 2014 – More slim and young amateur cuties on the beach.
Have you ever wondered why mainstream movie-making in the last twenty years has gravitated towards remakes, sequels and prequels of previously successful movies? Why do movie studios keep on making newer version of old hits? What is purpose of making progressively inferior sequels or prequels of questionable quality? Now there are some who would say that all literature, theater and cinema is derivative (cleverly plagiarized and recycled) and there is some truth to that. But that is not what I am talking about. Let me explain my point with a few examples.
The original Star Wars and lords of the rings franchises are indeed clever rehashes of epics centered around reluctant hero trope. Furthermore, such epic stories are found across diverse cultures and eras. However reading the Odyssey, Scandinavian sagas or even the much earlier Epic of Gilgamesh does not diminish the enjoyment of watching the original star wars films or the LOTR trilogy because while they all have the same basic story structure, each one takes great effort to create and populate its own unique and self-consistent universe. Similarly modern superhero characters have more than a passing resemblance to the trans-human/semi-divine characters that populate ancient myths and stories. Yet once again, the creators of most modern superhero characters took considerable effort to make them and the worlds they inhabit as unique and richly detailed as possible.
Now contrast this level of creativity and effort to that seen (or not seen) in the Star Wars and LOTR “prequels”. Or take movie remakes- Why do most modern movie remakes and sequels suck so badly? Compare the original Robocop movie to its recent remake. Or compare the remake of Total recall to its far more innovative original version. This is not to say that every remake, prequel or sequel sucks. There are examples where the reboot was as good or better than the original such as Scarface (1983 vs 1932) or the Mummy (1999 vs 1932). Note that both examples of successful remakes mentioned in the previous sentence were quite different from the original versions. Having said that movies in which the remake, sequel or prequel are better than the original are exceptions and not the rule.
But why is that so and what does it have to do with the true nature of capitalism?
The short answer to that question is as follows- trying to relentlessly increase and optimize monetary profits from any new source of income will always kill the proverbial golden egg laying goose. The somewhat longer answer to that question requires us to first take an honest look at what capitalism (or any other materialism based -ism) is really about.
In the preceding paragraph, I hinted that the tendency of capitalism to kill golden egg laying geese is shared by other material-based ideologies (such as state communism). But why would that be so? Aren’t materialism based ideologies more “scientific” and therefore superior to other ways of looking at the world? Well.. it depends and here is why.
Materialism based (reductionist) models work best when the systems are small in size, fundamental in nature and/or tractable. So materialism based models are perfect for doing things such as predicting the motion of planets, understanding the physical nature of matter, launching artificial satellites, synthesizing some new chemical compound or designing a new engine or vehicle. Their predictive value starts to decrease as the systems become more complex or chaotic- yet they are still quite useful for understanding phenomena as diverse as biological evolution, speciation or weather systems. Reductionist models however reach the end of their usefulness when we enter the realms of complex, fundamentally unstable and adaptive systems such as human societies.
Models based in reductionism work well only as long as the fundamental components of the system and interactions between are constant, predictable and measurable. We simply cannot do that with human societies of even basic complexity. This is where reductionist thinkers make two fundamental errors.
Firstly, they try to use an external and artificial standard unit (money) to keep track of exchanges in the system. While the amounts of money exchanged might initially have some correlation to the actual value of most interactions in the system- it always reaches a point where the amounts exchanged between components in the system has little (or no) correlation to the actual value of the interactions. However the quantity and flow of money in the system are now increasingly seen as the only legitimate measure of value of anything or any person in the system. Money becomes a proxy measure for something it can no longer be accurately used to measure.
The triumph of money as the only way to measure the worth of anything results in the second type of reductionist error. The quest for more money results in the ever-increasing use of reductionist models (and thinking) to optimize interactions and actions. It is this mindset that leads to mediocre, insipid or just plain shitty movie remakes, sequels and prequels- while simultaneously starving truly innovative ideas and concepts. The people who make decisions about movie funding therefore have little interest in the quality or craft of the final product. They are principally motivated by the predicted monetary returns on their ill-gained money.
That is why capitalism, communism and all other reductionist -isms, which use artificial gameable proxy units, to model the real world ultimately end up destroying the very things that make their existence possible.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Slim Cuties: Feb 26, 2014 – Slim and nubile cuties.
More Slim Cuties: Feb 26, 2014 – More slim and nubile cuties.
Smartphone Selfies: Feb 26, 2014 – Amateur cuties taking selfies.
More Smartphone Selfies: Feb 26, 2014 – More amateur cuties taking selfies.
These links are NSFW.
Spanking Toons : Feb 21, 2014 – Toon cuties getting spanked.
Bare Beach Amateurs : Feb 21, 2014 – Amateur cuties at the beach and around pools.
More Bare Beach Amateurs : Feb 21, 2014 – More cuties at the beach and around pools.
It has been over 7 months since the first excerpts from the Snowden document haul were published in the some mainstream media outlets. Since then, many document excerpts and summaries detailing the tools, capacity and ambition of the NSA (and its collaborators) have been published. As some of you may also know, all of the leaks published to date account for less than 2-3% of what Snowden gave to Greenwald and others- which themselves are a subset of all the documents he took with him in the first place.
So far the reaction from the majority of mainstream media outlets has ranged from condemnation to deliberate ignorance and dismissiveness. While this course of action might have been effective at suppressing information about those leaks in the pre-internet world, we live in a very connected world where non-mainstream media is now far more influential than its mainstream counterpart. But do these leaks matter? and will they have any long-term effects on public policy and perhaps more importantly the perception of people about their governments?
One of the favorite technique of mainstream media ‘journalists’ to try and minimize the impact of each new leak involves saying- “But we already knew that.” But is that really true? To put it another way- is hard and objective evidence about the existence of something really the same as speculative assumptions about its existence? Let us look at a few examples in recent history to try and answer that question.
Let us start by comparing the impact of genocides committed under Hitler to the one(s) committed under Stalin. Why do we hear so much about the former while the later is comparatively obscure, even though more people died in the later. Some say that the notoriety of genocide(s) under Hitler is linked to the fact that Jews were disproportionately represented in the body count- and there is some truth to that statement. However the religious and ethnic identity of the victims is secondary to the main reason we know so much the Nazi genocide.
It comes down to how well each one was documented.
The Holocaust was very well documented- both by its perpetrators and those who eventually stopped it. We have hundreds of thousands of graphic photographs, thousands of hours of movie footage, extensive document archives and a mountain of eyewitness testimony about what really happened during the Holocaust. The same is not true about the genocide(s) under Stalin. While we do have some documents, photographs and eye witness testimony about the events that occurred during those genocides- the total amount of such evidence is a very small fraction of what we have about the Holocaust.
The lack of extensive evidence makes the genocide(s) under Stalin feel substantially less “real” than the very well documented Holocaust- even though more people died in the former.
The “realness” of something we do not have personal knowledge or experience about is directly proportional to the amount of available first, and third, party evidence. This is also why the Armenian Genocide, Japanese war crimes and Mao’s great famine are not as well known as they otherwise would have been.
My point is that definitive evidence of something matters far more than vague assumptions about its existence, especially when such knowledge or information guides an appropriate response.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Artsy Nubiles: Feb 15, 2014 – Artsy nubile cuties.
More Artsy Nubile Cuties : Feb 15, 2014 – More artsy nubile cuties
Few will dispute the idea that Asian societies and cultures have always used high levels of social pressure to sustain themselves even if doing so resulted in high levels of poverty, unhappiness, misery and early death for most of their members. Before we go further, let me remind you that I am not claiming other cultures and civilizations were (or are) significantly better in that respect. Indeed, I have noted in numerous previous posts that all cultures, nations and civilizations are ponzi schemes. Having said that, it is rather obvious that east-asian cultures are (and always have been) especially good at being ponzi schemes.
Between their worship of, and deference to, “tradition” and a profound unwillingness to change unless such change is forced upon them- it is clear that those cultures are interested in perpetuating bad dynamic equilibriums rather than move to better ones. Yet for thousands of years they were able to sustain this self-inflicted hell largely because of high rates of fertility (aka disposable suckers). And once again, non-asian cultures and societies were not much better in that regard.
A lot have changed in the last hundred, and especially the last sixty, years. For one, we have seen voluntary global reductions in fertility rates to the extent that many countries now have barely replacement to below replacement rates of fertility. While the growth and spread of education, mores and technology had their role in this change, we have still largely ignored one of the most important questions surrounding this change. Why are so many people not interested in having kids at all or just having one or two? I believe that the answer lies in the fact that human existence under the prevailing socio-economic systems is (and always has been) highly dystopic. But that is a topic for another post or discussion.
There is however a related question that is fairly specific to east-asian cultures and countries. As I have said before- the ponzi scheme of “civilization” requires a naive and youth heavy demographic profile to persist for extended periods of time. This is especially true of the societies that systemically enforce cultural autism to survive. Now factor in the effect of a sharp reduction in the number of naive suckers caused by a serious and persistent global decline in rates of east-asian fertility. How would systems whose very existence depended on a constant and large supply of naive suckers react to a serious shortfall in fuel?
Let me pose that question in another way- Why are asian societies and cultures who are so good at enforcing self-destructive behavior among their members through social pressure unable to make them provide more fuel.. I mean kids.. for the ponzi scheme? Why is social pressure to enforce self-destructive behavior incapable of making them breed more?
There are those who will say that the large and sustained decline in east-asian fertility is a logical response to overcrowding or poverty. Some will say that it has to do with living in high stress societies which may be partially true. But none of that stopped them from having tons of kids in previous eras, did it? So why now? What changed? Some readers might say that westernization or feminism has made women less willing to have kids and there is something to that argument. However the fertility rates in east-asian countries are low even in those countries where women are not expected to work after marriage- such as Japan.
So what is going on? Why are countries with huge levels of social group-think and pressure unable to make their subjects.. I mean members.. have more kids? Why can’t societies who can browbeat their members in doing anything else not make them have more kids? It is certainly not for lack of trying.
What do you think? Comments?