While some events deserve a prompt commentary, others are best explored once the proverbial dust has settled down. I am sure that all of you are familiar with the Washington Navy Yard shooting in which Aaron Alexis fatally shot twelve people, and injured three others, inside the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.
Though I had initially considered posting my thoughts about that event within a couple of days after it occurred, it seemed prudent to wait until a clearer picture of that incident and the guy who did it was available. In any case, the new bits of information have only bolstered my original views about Aaron Alexis. So let us begin by dissecting the first and most widespread belief about the shooting incident, namely that Aaron was suffering from a serious mental illness.
By now, most of you have heard media accounts of his supposed short temper, beliefs, odd behavior and demeanor. Many talking-heads in mainstream media are expressing feigned outrage at how an individual with his “history” could obtain a security clearance. However the idea that Aaron had serious mental illness is problematic for a very basic reason.
A diagnosis of mental illness, serious or otherwise, is highly subjective and dictated by prevailing socio-political fashions rather than any interest in the welfare of the diagnosed individual.
While I do not dispute the existence of depression, schizophrenia or hypomania that is severe enough to require medical treatment for helping the affected individual, it is all to clear that a lot of what is diagnosed as mental illness is anything but that. Antidepressants are routinely to people whose mental state is a normal reaction to a fucked up world. Kids with anything other than highly conformist behavior are diagnosed with ADHD. Male sport stars who sleep with many hot and willing women are diagnosed with “sex-addiction”. Nor is the trend new of labeling otherwise normal behavior new. Some of you might be aware that homosexuality was, as late as the early-1970s, considered to a mental disease.
The label of mental illness is therefore largely about an individual being someone other than a mindless, conformist, willing and disposable slave.
Face it.. would we be questioning the sanity of Aaron Alexis if he was a famous musician, actor or sportsman? Or what if he never shot those 12 people? What fraction of short-tempered introverts who believe in some conspiracy theory end up shooting a dozen people? Society is certainly not interested in the mental state of a white guy who wears an “official” uniform and ends up shooting some unarmed black guy because he matched the “description” of a suspect. Or what about some white guy serving the american armed forces who ends up shooting civilians in a country invaded by the USA to supposedly spread “democracy”?
Is there really a fundamental difference between a black guy killing 12 people in the USA and some white guy killing a similar number of civilians in some occupied middle-eastern country?
In both cases, the people killed were innocent. None of the victims were asking for it nor did they personally know the guy who killed them. Yet one event is seen as a great tragedy, a sign of poor vetting, inadequate security precautions and so on. The other event is just seen as an unfortunate accident in the supposedly altruistic projects of spreading “democracy” in the world.
So what is going on? Is someone mentally ill because they did not wear the right “uniform” when killing a dozen people? Or could it be the skin color of most victims? What about the skin color of the shooter? Or what about those who followed orders to kill hundreds or thousands of civilians who had never previously harmed them? Were the soldiers who followed such orders good soldiers, mass murderers, sociopaths, morons, mentally ill or all of the above? What about drone jockeys who blow up children unfortunate enough to be at the wrong wedding party in some godforsaken middle-eastern country?
It is clear that a lot of our supposedly cherished beliefs about “right” and “wrong” just don’t hold up under scrutiny.
Some of you might say “but.. but that guy believed the government was using radio waves to keep him awake at night and mess with his head. Isn’t this proof that he was nuts?” OK, let us look at some other beliefs that are considered normal and healthy. Take religion.. Christian evangelicals often talk about hearing or talking with a voice nobody else can hear. Are they widely seen as mentally ill? What about devout Muslims? Surely, interpreting two books written in an archaic form of Arabic years after the death of the guy who supposedly said all those things should create some doubt. But don’t many of that particular faith exhibit an unusual certainty about the divinity and veracity of what was written in those books, even if they are functionally illiterate. The same is true of Christian bible literalists and Hindu traditionalists who are sure about the validity of their beliefs even if most have not read the books they claim to believe in.
Believing that the government is using radio waves to keep a person awake at night is no more insane that living you life according to the words of some thousand-year old manuscript of dubious authorship.
This is not to say that the mental state of Aaron Alexis had no impact on his actions. Clearly the guy had ongoing problems with insomnia and may have suffered from infrequent hallucinations. However the intensity of his mental issues was not sufficient to affect his ability to perform his day job. The guy was not retarded or otherwise of sub-average intelligence. Nor was he particularly confrontational for a black guy. The shooting cannot therefore be explained away as the work of a seriously mentally ill individual. It was not especially random or poorly planned and he clearly wanted to go out after he had killed as many people as he could. His actions were rational, even if they were not conventional.
So what was going on in his mind?
Here is my analysis of the factors that might have led him to do what he did.It comes down to extrapolating the two dominant pathways in his life before the shooting. Note that they are not mutually exclusive. You may or may not agree with it and that is fine.
Pathway 1: He was becoming more mentally ill, but well enough to understand that.
Where do you draw the line between sanity and insanity? Is the distinction between the two that clear? Maybe he felt his mental stability was deteriorating and that this was his last chance to do what he always wanted. He was like almost all Americans, certainly aware, that we do not treat people deemed mentally ill well- especially if they are not rich, male and non-white. He was all three. How many of you would care for those you pretend to love if they were mentally ill, broke or homeless? Countless men like him are routinely left to allowed to wallow in poverty, prison or die. Maybe he understood his lack of good options and decided to take a few others out with him. Sure.. his victims did not deserve to die but neither did he deserve the almost inevitable and totally avoidable suffering inflicted by a profit-minded society on people like him.
Pathway 2: He was tired of life and wanted to exit on his own terms.
Everything we know about him to date suggests that he was a lonely and somewhat socially awkward guy. Whether this was due to his personality or mental illness is anyone’s guess. Maybe he felt that his life was at a dead-end and he had no future worth living for. It is not as if he was going to get a stable job, meet the love of his life and live happily ever after. Some might say that a guy “like him” should be grateful for having a job, any job, in the first place. Well.. as it turns out, he thought differently and there is not much anybody can do about it now. Those of you who feel he was an ungrateful black guy are certainly welcome to go and tell that to him in the afterlife.
In conclusion, the primary motivation for his actions were rational regardless of the secondary precipitating factors.
What do you think? Comments?
We keep on hearing a lot of opinions about the famous/infamous dance by Miley Cyrus at the 2013 VMA. But let us put that performance in some perspective. Here is a YouTube clip of the 10-year old winner of her category in some national dance competition.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Sweet Nubile Cuties: Sep 21, 2013 – Nubile cuties with cute faces.
More Sweet Nubile Cuties: Sep 21, 2013 – More nubile cuties with cute faces.
Even More Sweet Nubile Cuties: Sep 21, 2013 – Even more cute faced nubile cuties.
The interactions of human motivations, capitalism, perverse incentives, fake jobs, technology and system inertia have been the subject of many of my older posts. It has been clear to me, for some time now, that nothing good can come out this mixture- except perhaps by accident. However most people still do not subscribe to my worldview largely because it is somewhat depressing. They would rather keep on believing ambient comforting lies than think for themselves. But I am not giving up and here is another attempt to make a few more people question their beliefs. It starts with a simple question.
Why do professions created to solve problems often end up causing more damage than the problems themselves?
Here are a few contemporary examples to better illustrate my point. Take school teachers.. why has increased funding and employment in the pre-university education sector not increased the quality of education? Why do teachers keep on insisting that more money, power, rules and guidelines will solve the problems? What is the problem anyway? Are human beings naturally not inclined to learn new and personally useful skills? Are children not naturally excellent observers, very curious and enthusiastic? So why do most of them hate school? Could it possible that schools, in their current form, discourage learning? Is it a coincidence that school architecture and procedures increasingly resemble prisons?
Or consider the legal profession.. why has public perceptions about the level of judicial dysfunction gone up in parallel with the number of people employed in that sector? Shouldn’t an increase in the number of people employed to solve a set of problems result in their diminution? Shouldn’t spending a larger fraction of your financial resources on legal costs make things flow more smoothly? So why do we end up with an ever-increasing number of laws, bylaws, rules and regulations whose sole purpose is to make things stickier? Why has the size of even simple contracts exploded within the last 30 years? Why are most ‘criminal’ convictions in the USA based on plea deals and mandatory minimums rather than something old-fashioned like a trial?
The medical profession provides more examples of this problem in action. Why has most of the money invested and spent within the last 30 years on medical care and research not yielded any large-scale improvements in outcomes? Why is most of the health care money spent on procedure and equipment of dubious efficacy, while we ignore problems such as development of newer antibiotics, better vaccines and truly innovative ways to treat diseases that are as yet untreatable? Why has all the money spent on finding a cure for various types of cancers, Alzheimers, Parkinsonism etc not yielded anything worthwhile after two or three decades? Why have rates of obesity and other metabolic illness gone up at the same rate as people adopting the dietary guidelines created by credentialed “experts”? Why are medical mistakes officially the 3rd and probably the 2nd largest cause of death?
Professions involved in maintaining “law and order” provide yet more examples of the problem. Why do we keep hiring more cops and other assorted law-critters when the rates of minor crime have been falling for over two decades- almost all over the world. Why are people not involved in gangs more likely to killed by a cop than a criminal belonging to some gang? What about all those barely reported unnatural deaths in judicial custody or jail? What about property forfeiture of innocents, rigged red-light cameras and a host of other rent-seeking behaviors? Does any of this increase the safety of most people? What percentage of simple property crimes do cops solve anyway? Do they protect people from large-scale financial fraud and economic crimes?
But is this a relatively new phenomena?
Certain vocations and professions have, since the beginning of human history, almost always worsened the problems they were supposed to solve.
Emperors, kings, dukes and feudal lords have been promising protection and peace to their subjects since the beginning of history. Oddly enough, things almost never worked out that way. Recorded history is full of accounts of constant skirmishes, mass persecutions, disastrous wars, endless palace intrigues and the construction of costly palaces or tombs. It is very doubtful if the presence of rulers improved the security of their subjects and the converse is likely true. Yet all these rulers claimed divine, semi-divine or otherwise special ancestry and fitness to rule.
Priest are another example of a professional class that promised people everything from a great afterlife to seeking divine intervention for stopping plagues, preventing earthquakes and ensuring bountiful harvests. Today we know that all those sacrifices, prayers, chants and other assorted bullshit were utterly useless and often counterproductive. Let us also not forget the role of the priestly class in supporting wars based on whose invisible sky-friend could piss further. Did I also mention that priests became priests through a lengthy process of being born to the ‘right’ parents, having the ‘right’ mentors and spouting the ‘right’ brand of lies and bullshit.
Scholars, philosophers and intellectuals are yet another example of a group that has not delivered. Under the guise of investigating the human condition, these sophists came up clever arguments to justify the oppression and abusive behavior of whoever paid their salary. The world would be no worse of if every ancient philosopher of every single tradition never existed. The same can be said about ancient scholars who were the PR guys and talking heads of their eras.
So, is there a link between the politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, physicians and cops from our era with the various rulers, priests and scholars of previous eras?
Yes, there is and it is called credentialism. Vocations and professions that require extensive credentialization and approval from prior members almost always tend to create far more problems than they are supposed to solve, if they can even do that. But why is that so? Isn’t credentialism meant to keep incompetent people out and promote people from within based on their merit?
While the founding myth and official story line about credentialism often portray it as the best way to keep incompetent people out of important and financially lucrative professions- it is anything but that in real life. To understand the “why” let us have a brief look at the psyche of people who crave endless amounts of power, prestige and money. Such individuals are typically the most self-centered, narcissistic and sociopathic individuals in any given society. They are also the least altruistic and humane in that system.
The very idea that such people are even capable of caring about anybody but themselves is laughable.
Credentialism is therefore just a scam to protect rent-seeking vocations by making them look official and natural. Insiders to any credentialism-based scam have no interest in actually solving problems or making the lives of other people better. It largely exists to put a pleasant facade on what would otherwise be seen as parasitic extortion and abuse. It allows the parasites to maintain the status quo and keep on exploit their position. The money and status obtained through credentialism also allows them to temporarily insulate themselves from the adverse consequences of their actions.
At this point, I can almost hear some of you saying- “but.. but would you let an unlicensed surgeon perform surgery on you?” Here is my answer.. when I talk about credentialism I am also referring to restricted admission in the vocation or profession. You cannot compare somebody who barely has some experience to someone who was admitted and trained in that vocation or profession. Furthermore, as I said before, medical mistakes are the 3rd or 2nd largest cause of death. So the original question is meaningless.
A far better question would be- “Is a surgeon trained in a well-funded medical program in India as competent as one trained in a similar program in USA? and my answer to that question is – Yes. The same is also true of individuals who got their degrees from a state university rather than some ivy league institution. The presence or absence of specific paperwork is really about optimal rent-seeking rather than the ability of an individual to perform a particular job.
Having said that, a larger problem still remains. How can you get people to reduce the incidence of problems if their remuneration is linked to the number of problems they supposedly solve? Wouldn’t eliminating problems also eliminate their cushy jobs? Furthermore, creating new problems is the easiest way to increase your income- regardless of their effect on the rest of society.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Ample Bottomed Cuties: Sep 14, 2013 – Cuties with the right amount of junk.
Beach Themed Nubiles: Sep 14, 2013 – Slim and nubile cuties at or near the seashore.
Pretty Nubile Cuties: Sep 14, 2013 – Slim, pretty and young cuties.
More Pretty Nubile Cuties: Sep 14, 2013 – More pretty, slim and young cuties.
One of my biggest issues with supporters of the alt-right, CONservative and LIEbertarian viewpoints is that they are almost always the least likely to benefit from real-life implementation of the viewpoints they so enthusiastically espouse. The average supporter of such viewpoints is typically a redneck, working class or barely middle-class white guy without a lot of education, connections, real life experience and analytic intelligence. Eventually some of them grow up and get smart, but most do not and keep on supporting and helping those who oppress them- aka false class consciousness.
Let me show you two recent examples of this phenomena, as taken from the recent tweets of Matt Forney.
The first example involves the exposure and dismissal of Pax Dickinson. The story, as far as we know to date, is that some douchy fratboy who got his highfalutin job through having the right contacts spent a lot of time tweeting about women, gays, blacks etc. Some of you might say, but.. but.. wasn’t he some ‘brogrammer’ and CTO of some media outfit? Doesn’t he have to be competent at something to get that job in the first place. My answer is sure.. predominately administrative jobs require one to be very good at deceiving, backstabbing, cheating, scamming and gaming others. The hard skills are however pretty much optional, even if you are a CTO.
Now let us see how Matt responded to this news. Here are some of his more relevant tweets.
#standwithpax because you shouldn’t lose your job because of your completely unrelated political views. 3:31 PM – 10 Sep 13
#standwithpax because if you can’t exercise freedom of speech without a lynch mob coming after you, then freedom of speech does not exist. 3:34 PM – 10 Sep 13
#standwithpax Seriously you morons, you think Nick Denton cares about you? He and Valleywag just wanted to hurt a competitor. 3:44 PM – 10 Sep 13
@rooshv “First they came for the anti-feminists, and I did not speak up because I was not an anti-feminist…” 4:13 PM – 11 Sep 13
Matt also re-tweeted some stuff by RooshV in support of Pax, but that is beside the point. Here is my problem with all this support for Pax- Is it really about the freedom of speech? Let us be clear about a few things- no one has arrested Pax, slapped him with some heavy fine or otherwise fucked him over.. yet. There are no calls for actual human sacrifice and so far no body has shot him or beat him up. It is also not as if Pax is some poor marginal guy who lives from one paycheck to the other. Furthermore, his tweets were relevant to his job function as he was also supposedly involved in recruiting new talent for that company. And this brings me to my real problem with Matts support for Pax.
What is in it for Matt?
I can totally understand if Matt supported the unpopular opinions of a fellow blogger or somebody he knew in person. I can also understand support for a cause greater than a person. But Pax? Seriously? The only way Matt and Pax would ever meet is Matt chauffeuring Pax around a golf course or resort. Or maybe Matt working as a security guard in the building where Pax worked. The unfortunate reality is that Pax and Matt are never going to meet as equal human beings under the current system- even if Matt is smarter and more competent than Pax. Ya, all that talk about meritocracy in silicon valley is bullshit. Sure, merit can get you an entry-level job so that you slave away to make some connected fratboy even richer. But that is about it. You will never rise beyond a certain level in any company, irrespective of your work ethic, competence, intelligence or creativity.
Simply put, Matts support for Pax is as rational as a concentration camp Jew supporting Nazis. It might buy you a few extra days or weeks, but it won’t change the eventual outcome.
Moving on, Matt also tweeted about Bill de Blasio winning the democratic primary for the upcoming mayoral election in NYC. So let us have a look at some of Matts tweets about that bit of news.
Bill de Blasio for Mayor: because who needs safe streets and low crime rates anyway? #NYC2013 #crockthevote 10:23 PM – 10 Sep 13
Bill de Blasio for Mayor: because why should we let Chicago and Detroit have all the murder and mayhem? #NYC2013 #crockthevote 10:30 PM – 10 Sep 13
If de Blasio becomes mayor, watch for an influx of vapid HuffPo/Daily Beast columns about Chirlane’s “beauty” and “style.” 11:25 AM – 11 Sep 13
Let us, for a moment, imagine that electing Bill de Blasio will somehow result in NYC returning to the ‘exciting’ 1970s and 1980s. Let us also imagine that ‘black crime’ goes up and the streets of NYC suddenly become more grittier. My question is – so what? Does the destruction of Bloombergs financial elite and police state favoring legacy really make things any worse for Matt? Given that Matt is not Jewish, rich or connected- he is pretty much screwed in the NYC of today. Sure.. he could find some job that paid enough to live paycheck to paycheck. Maybe he might even get a luck break and make it in the rapidly shrinking middle-class of NYC. But is he really going to benefit from the policies of Giuliani and Bloomberg? Is he going to get a job or vocation that allows him to make millions per year. Will he be ever able to afford living in one of those fancy penthouse suites? In the best case scenario, he might see a few of them from the inside.. a few times each year. He will be lucky to, one day, own a small shitty house in NJ and commute daily to Manhattan.
So here is my free, and unsolicited, advise to Matt and others like him. Always think about what something means for you, rather than some fictional version of yourself. Carrying free water for rich assholes will never get you anywhere and they will never help you or even remember your help- even if you have the same skin color or last name as them. The alternative is that you could just keep on doing what you are doing now and then realize that you got conned a couple of decades from now.
What do you think? comments?
Continuing onward from the previous part of this series, let me describe the long process via which I reached the conclusion that human vectors are far more problematic than pathogenic humans. Part of this journey has been described in one of my older articles, Nazis as Corporate Drones, in which I proposed that the mindset of loyal Nazis was remarkably similar to the ideal american corporate drone. But why? Why do some people make loyal Nazis or good corporate drones, while many others just don’t fit in such institutions or care about their assigned tasks. A glimpse into what makes loyal Nazis and corporate drones can be found later on in the same article and I quote..
It does not take a genius to figure out that moderately ambitious personalities with little ability for independent thought, but just enough brain-power to carry the task they have been assigned, will flourish in such institutions.
It is however clear that being an average, mediocre and conformist simpleton is only part of what makes a loyal Nazi or corporate drone. If that was not so, almost any guy on the street could be molded into a mindless loyal Nazi or corporate drone. But that is not the case and history shows that most people make incompetent Nazis or corporate drones. That is not to say they are stupid. Indeed, those who do it inefficiently understand the nature of the job much better than those who do it efficiently.
So what are the extra conditions, predispositions and circumstances necessary to create loyal Nazis or corporate drones?
Interviews of those who committed genocide in the name of the Third Reich are a good place to start. I have read many transcripts and seen many interviews of such people and here are some of my observations. The vast majority of those who participated in such activities appear very normal, even ‘extra-normal’, on multiple levels. Almost all of them had families, wives, children and dogs. You can see photographs of them enjoying picnics, fishing, beach holidays, family functions during the same time they were killing thousands of unarmed people in their day jobs. They do not appear to have any conventional mental illness nor do they display any real remorse, guilt or conscience for what they were doing. They seemed to more concerned about their promotions, living quarters and family lives.
Now some of you might say that they were just trying to make the best of what was at hand. Maybe they were trying to protect their minds from the realities of what they were doing. I could buy that argument but for one very glaring problem- they were very enthusiastic, motivated and diligent at performing their ‘daytime’ jobs. Many had great pride at their efficiency at doing what they did. That is most unlike a person forced to kill someone else to stay alive. And one more thing- the behavior, attitudes, mindset and worldview of the average loyal Nazi was very reminiscent of the average faithful Mormon, something we will revisit later on in this series.
It is especially fascinating to see that the moderate intelligence, blind obedience to large institutions, child-like faith in authority, clean-cut lifestyle, strong family ties and extreme conformism was especially prevalent in loyal Nazis as it is in american corporate drones and faithful mormons. But was that just a simple coincidence or does it point to something else? What about other genocides during the 20th century? Were the perpetrators mentally similar to the loyal Nazis or corporate drones?
To answer that question, let us look at the other great genocide of the 1930s-1940s aka Japanese rule in China. While the Japanese killed more Chinese than the Nazis killed Jews, it is not as well documented as the later one. To complicate matters further, most Japanese still do not accept that what they did was wrong and veterans of that era are very reluctant to talk about their actions. However even a basic understanding of Japanese history and society would suggest that Japanese are not especially violent in Japan. Indeed, it is and has been a remarkably safe place as long as stable governance exists. So what accounts for the most peculiar Japanese behavior in China during the 1930s-1940s?
Here is my theory.. the average Japanese had all the features of a loyal Nazi. Everything from the moderate intelligence, blind obedience to large institutions, child-like faith in authority, clean-cut lifestyle, strong family ties and extreme conformism was even more prevalent in Japanese society than WW2-era German society. Curiously, they also make excellent corporate drones. Coincidence? I think not! The same is also true for the loyal british bureaucrats and soldiers who slaved away and committed various genocides for the empire. They were all cut from the same metaphoric cloth.
In the next part I shall explore how all of this fits into the world of today.
What do you think? Comments?
The transmission of infectious diseases from one host to another can occur in a number of ways. Some involve direct physical contact between the two hosts or their bodily secretions and excretions, others involve an inanimate intermediary such as water, food or soil. A small but significant number of pathogens utilize a temporary host, often of a different species from their main host, to jump from one host to the other.
Temporary or secondary hosts that facilitate the transmission of a pathogen are known as vectors.
Most of you are aware that certain genera of mosquitoes transmit malaria and a number of other viruses and parasites. Fleas transmit diseases such as plague and epidemic typhus. Houseflies facilitate the spread of many pathogens that causes gastrointestinal illnesses and ticks transmit the bacterial species that cause lyme disease among many others. I could go on, but this post is about the dynamics of human societies, not medical microbiology.
In the past, I have often compared the true elite (the 0.1 or 0.01%) to mindless pathogens whose purpose for existence seems to center around stealing from and damaging their hosts, regardless of the long-term consequences. But how do they do that, given their rather small numbers both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total population? Did any genocidal tyrant ever personally kill even a tiny fraction of the people who died under their rule? How many Jews did Hitler kill with his own hands? what about Stalin? How many people did Stalin kill with his own hands? How many Indians did Churchill personally kill? In all of the above cases, and every other instance of genocide, those who gave the orders were almost never involved in carrying them out.
The same is true for leaders who order their nations into war, CEOs who fire thousands of people, bankers who steal trillions from millions.
The success of such ‘endeavors’ depended around their ability to commandeer the temporary loyalty of a minority of the population who carry out their orders and wishes. Without these people, or should we say.. vectors, the malicious wishes and desires of the elite would be little more than pipe-dreams. They would have no ability to influence anything beyond their immediate environment and even then they would probably be quickly killed off by the first few people they tried to harm or steal from.
The elite in every social system are therefore completely dependent upon the continued existence of a much larger number, though still a minority, of vectors to carry out their malicious designs. I should also point out that exterminating one group of elites often results in another bunch filling their spots and continuing the malicious behavior, if in a somewhat different direction.
Exterminating vectors and their progeny is the only foolproof way of destroying elites.
But who are these vectors in human societies? How can you identify them? How did they arise in the first place? What motivates them? What is going on inside their little heads? What is their survival strategy? How do you break them? How do you destroy them? How do you prevent their reemergence?
Vectors in human society can be identified by the nature of their jobs, their level of enthusiasm for their vocations and the underlying motivation for doing whatever they do. Vectors work in jobs, occupations and vocations that directly (or indirectly) serve the elites, implement their dystopic visions, enforce their ideas and collect rent for them. Vectors are also distinguishable from other non-elites by an unusually high degree of enthusiasm towards their often openly dystopic and inhumane vocations. Many of them are true believers in the inherent goodness of whatever they do and believe that the elites really embody virtues. Almost every single vector sees himself (or herself) as morally superior to the people they are robbing, abusing and killing.
One of the most peculiar and distinguishing feature of vectors is their high levels of devotion to their own family and children. All vectors are great “family” men and women. They invest a lot of themselves in the upbringing of their progeny. As you will see later on, this presents a particularly interesting and exploitable vulnerability.
In the next part of this series, I shall list the most commonly encountered vector subtypes, what they do, why they do it and what motivates them.
What do you think? Comments?
Let me begin by clarifying that this is not a hit piece against asians or their “cultures”. A lot of the issues I will talk about in this post are almost as prevalent in other “cultures” and pretty much all other large human organisations. So let us define what “cultures” are and are not.
Cultures are large and impersonal human organisations that survive by offering illusory membership benefits to the majority of its members in return for unquestioning obedience, conformity and sacrifice by those very same members.
The defining feature of every cult, religion, nation and culture throughout human history is that they are all scams to enslave, exploit and abuse the majority for the benefit of a very small minority and their flunkies. They have no interest in delivering on any of the promises they routinely make to the majority of their members and will actively resist attempts by others to do so. With that in mind, let me talk about the old observation that made me write this post. Years ago, I observed that many otherwise divergent asian cultures had a peculiar set of common behaviors and attitudes centered around happiness.
Asian cultures are almost fanatically devoted to promoting and enforcing anti-happiness.
Whether it is the exam and hierarchy dominated culture of China, the ‘everyone is watching you’ culture of Japan or the excessive family sacrifice dominated culture of India.. there is an almost deliberate effort to destroy the happiness of most individuals in each system. But to what end? Who benefits from all this hard work, status jockeying, enforced conformity and sacrifice? Has the average (or median) Chinese ever benefited from any of that hard work, rote memorizing and bowing to authority? What about the average Japanese? What about the average Indian?
Some of you might say that the economic growth and development experienced by Asian countries within the last 60-70 years is proof that the ‘asian way’ of anti-happiness produces good results. My counter question is: OK, so why did it not work for the previous few thousand years? Why did it take the industrial revolution, imported from outside, for asian countries to finally lift the living standards of their median members? And why didn’t the scientific and industrial revolutions start in countries that supposedly respected and rewarded learning and intelligence? Then there is also the question of why Asian countries resisted the scientific and industrial revolution for so long.
Even today educated Japanese people believe that the bloodlines of people descended from survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are tainted. Educated south Koreans obsess about blood groups and their Indian counterparts still take astrology a bit too seriously. Note that I am not claiming that people in western countries are any better when it comes to believing in bullshit. But should you not expect more from educated Asians, especially since they are typically more science literate. But what does any of this have to do with enforcing anti-happiness?
I recently wrote a post about how pleasing others progressively lost its value. In that post, I wrote about how the relationship between an individual and the larger group is fundamentally adversarial. Only external constraints and limitations can prevent either party for abusing the other to the point of non-viability. That is why small and personal groups can survive for tens of thousands of years while highly centralized and functional “nations” can unravel after the death of just one charismatic despot.
But what about malfunctional social systems? How long can they survive if they keep on exploiting, abusing and stealing from the majority of its members to benefit a small minority. The answer is dependent on the availability of new surplus suckers. Only the continuous creation, indoctrination and exploitation of more naive younger members can prop up dysfunctional social systems such as civilizations. Which brings us to the next logical question.. what is the exact role of parents and other older members of these systems in exploiting their own children.
In one of my previous posts, once again, I had speculated that the relationship between asian parents and their kids is most similar to that between an employer and his employees. But how is that different from a less dysfunctional parent-child relationship? What makes the ‘asian type’ parent-child relationship different from that in.. say hunter-gatherers? The answer lies in the balance of give and take for both parties. In more “primitive” societies parental investment is based in expectations of reciprocity rather than calculations of net economic gains from each offspring. To be clear, I am not implying that people in ‘primitive’ societies are intrinsically better. They just cannot get away with that shit..
So how does you maximize the net economic gain from each offspring? The answer is as simple as it is unpleasant. Happy and self-confident people do not make good slaves or indentured workers. The best workers are perpetually unhappy, insecure, fearful, paranoid and willing to hurt themselves for approval from their abusers.
The best way to create compliant workers to keep the ponzi scheme going is to constantly belittle your kids, compare them to others, guilt them into slaving for your benefit and interfere in their normal sexual development. It also helps to create mini-systems of worthless honorifics, enforcing proper slave behavior, participating in complicated but meaningless rituals and seeing patterns and omens in everything from numbers to cloud patterns.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Spanking Art: Aug 25, 2013 – Drawings of cuties getting spanked..
More Spanking Art: Aug 25, 2013 – More drawings of cuties getting spanked..
People have a strong and unfortunate tendency to see correlations, patterns, agency or purpose in what is essentially background noise or random events. That is why humans throughout the ages have tried to find meaning in everything from the patterns of used tea leaves, yarrow stalks and animal entrails to the relative positions of stars and planets at a given movement in time. Curiously, the “smartest” morons in any given group or society are often the most likely to believe in such bullshit because they have the biggest emotional and material investment in such speculations.
Today we like to believe that humanity has somehow moved beyond the eras when the appearance of comets and other astronomical phenomena were harbingers of plagues, earthquakes, storms or even armageddon. We desperately want to believe that ‘we’ are somehow better than ‘those’ primitive people who used to believe in witches, vampires or trolls. But is that really the case? Sure.. we no longer burn older women for witchcraft and movies based on fictional vampires make lots of money at the box office. On the other hand, any guy who interacts with unattended children is automatically seen as a dangerous pedophile and man-made global warming is supposed to be the biggest problem of our era.
The sad truth is that we have replaced one set of magically derived insights into the universe with another set of similarly derived ones.
Which brings me to the subject of “evolutionary psychology“. As some of you might know, I have previously written about some of the problems inherent in this “science” in posts such as link 1 and link 2. The gist of my previous criticisms can be summed up as-
We cannot look at human behavior through the lens of deterministic evolutionary “science” without acknowledging that the structure and dynamics of human societies throughout most of history and pre-history was very different from today.
This post attacks the pseudoscience of “evolutionary psychology” from a different angle by concentrating on one of its fundamental (but rarely stated) belief, namely that people actions and behavior are largely rational. To put it another way- Can evolutionary psychology explain human behavior and attitudes if neither are based in rational or semi-rational thought processes?
Some of you might say- but does it have to be that way? What if evolutionary psychology only explains the instinctual parts of human behavior? Maybe it is not meant to explain conscious and non-instinctual behavior? My answer is.. OK, but then purveyors of evolutionary psychology should not claim that it can explain complex and premeditated behavior. So the idea that women might be a bit more flirtatious when they are ovulating because of their hormonal status is reasonable. However theorizing that one racial group is intrinsically superior to another because of their reproductive strategies is utter bullshit and not based in evidence- as I will explain in more detail later.
But there remains a still deeper, if even less obvious problem, with evolutionary psychology. It implies (but again, never states explicitly) that evolution is a path towards some increasing levels of perfection. In that respect, evolutionary psychology sounds a bit too much like classical religious dogma. Some of you might see that as surprising, but I do not. A lot of the so-called soft “sciences” and even popular interpretations of hard sciences are secular version of theology. Evolutionary psychology has far more in common with moralistic legends and myths than anything approaching science, not unlike eugenics – its real predecessor.
So what do I mean when I say that evolution has no defined path or direction. Let me explain with an example.
Consider the evolution of differentiated multi-cellular animals. All currently available fossil and molecular biology based evidence suggests that such creatures first evolved somewhere between 1 billion to 600 million years ago. Now that is a bit late considering that unicellular life evolved almost 4 billion years ago. Why did it take evolution over 3 billion years to evolve differentiated multi-cellularity? Why was it so hard to evolve something that is not that big of a leap- especially when you compare complex single cell eukaryotes with simple but differentiated multicellular organisms?
The explanation that best fits other geological evidence goes something like this- it was all about the level of atmospheric oxygen. Until fairly recently in the earths geological history, say less than a billion years ago, the levels of atmospheric oxygen were too low to allow organisms with an aerobic metabolism and circulatory system to exist. The presence or absence of genes that made differentiated multi-cellularity possible was therefore largely irrelevant. They took off only after the atmospheric and hence dissolved aqueous concentrations of oxygen went over a certain level, probably 1/4th or 1/5th of what we have today.
If we had reached that point a couple of billion years before we did, differentiated multi-cellular organisms would also have evolved a couple of billion years before they did. Evolution filled niches that opened up because of changes in the environment or possibility matrix. The evolution of multi-cellular organisms were not inevitable, destined or preordained. The same is true for every other product of evolution from antibiotic resistant bacteria, human-specific pathogens to dinosaurs, mammals, aquatic mammal, monkeys and even humans.
There is no grand designer, master plan or even vague directional guidelines for the process of evolution. It is all about what can evolve, survive and reproduce in a given environment at a particular moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less.
Coming back to the subject of human evolution, one of the principal claims of “evolutionary psychology” is that human beings are interested in maximizing the survival and dispersal of their genes. But is that really the case? Are human beings consciously making decisions to maximize the number of kids they leave behind? Are people having sex for the purpose of procreation as opposed to just enjoying it? Do people obsessively maintain a scoreboard of the number of kids they have and their fates? Do they constantly think up new strategies to have more kids or have more successful kids? Do women spend their time coming up with detailed strategies for getting the seed of the right ‘alpha’ fathers and then finding the right ‘beta’ schlubs to provide for them?
The sad reality is that almost nobody, other than male aspies, spend that much time thinking or obsessing about reproductive success. Ironically, most woman have no interest in having sex with them, let alone have their kids.
People are just not the obsessive-compulsive, single-minded and deterministic calculating machines that “evolutionary psychology” wants you to believe. Human beings are just not into deep thinking, extensive strategizing or complex reasoning because doing all that takes away from actually living and enjoying life. Moreover none of that extensive planning guarantees you anything other than disappointment when unforeseen externalities piss all over your carefully laid plans.
In summary, evolutionary psychology is a ‘clever’ but futile attempt by white male aspies to make eugenics respectable- once again. Sadly for them, almost everybody else has better and more fun things to do in their lives. The best part is that all these aspies will never get the feminine approval and company they so desperately crave.
What do you think? Comments?
The future of feminism is one of the most discussed, debated and written about topics on supposedly male-centered blogs. It seems that almost everyone from traditional CONservatives, alt-right morons, MRAs, game CONartists and followers of pretty much every other supposedly male-centric ideology want to see feminism fail. These people spend a lot of time coming up with scenarios under which their dreams would come true and try to interpret every new bit of information through their ideological blindfolds.. I mean goggles.
It is often hard to ignore the obvious parallels between them and those who believe in apocalypse-centered belief systems. Yet feminism keeps on winning more victories and expanding in its reach- even to parts of the world where it is relatively new and non-indigenous. And all of this brings us to a question that most people opposed to feminism seem to be incapable of answering with any significant degree of objectivity.
Why does feminism keep on winning and expanding its reach? and why do comparable male ideologies fail?
There are those who believe that the success of feminism is due to its support by international bankers or elites who are using it to further their own “super-secret” nefarious goals. Others see it as the result of “christian” men abandoning their supposed roles as “leaders” of the family. Yet other blame artificial female hormones in the water supply. I could go on and list many other equally peculiar and convoluted theories put forth to explain the success of feminism, but I am not in a mood for telling you any more fairy tales today. So let us look at the core elements of all these theories..
Most conventional theories about the success of feminism try to explain it as something “unnatural ” that is rammed down the throat of a reluctant society by some shady collection of small but “powerful” groups.
They want you to believe that the remarkable success of feminism is an “unnatural” aberration and somehow unsustainable without the constant and tireless efforts of shady elites or banal bureaucrats. But is that really the case? What is “natural” and what is “unnatural”? Is working in cubicles and living in suburban stucco boxes natural? Are nuclear families natural? Are corporations or “free markets” natural? Is capitalism natural? My point is that a lot of what these people strongly believe in is no less “natural” or “unnatural” than feminism.
Feminism is best seen as one of the eventualities of a larger systemic change that began with the industrial revolution.
But why is there no male equivalent of feminism? Sure, we have all heard about MRAs, alt-righters, MGTOW and PUAs- but none of them have been able to start a movement that is even remotely as successful as feminism. Now, I am sure that all of them have their own complex analysis of the factors underlying their repeated failures. But what if there is a far more straightforward and obvious reason for the failure of all these supposedly male-centric movements?
Here is my theory..
The incredible success of feminism (and popular support for it) comes down to the very basic membership criteria required to benefiting from its gains and victories. To put it another way- any woman can benefit from feminism. Sure.. women from some groups might benefit more than women from other groups, but in the end they are all better off than before. Being white, black, hispanic, asian, fat, thin, hot, ugly, hairy or smooth is secondary to being a woman- as far as benefiting from feminism is concerned. The beneficiary does not have to prove anything beyond their gender.
In contrast to the universal benefit provided by feminism, all of the supposedly male-centric movements want their members to prove that they are worthy or deserving of their membership. The CONservative morons want you to be religious and traditional, the alt-righters want you to be white, the game morons want you to white, buff, witty and so on. Isn’t it odd that people who cannot guarantee anything to their followers want so much from them.
But the bigger problem with all supposedly male-centric movements is a profound unwillingness to share the gains. It is about robbing others with the assistance of your followers and then stiffing those very followers instead of sharing the gains with them. Compare this to feminism, where the gains made by affluent white women in the earlier part of the feminist movement did not remain restricted to them and went on to benefit less affluent white and non-white women.
To summarize, feminism has been very successful because of the very low barriers for membership and universalization of benefits and gains for its members. The same is not true for supposedly male-centric movements and ideologies which have more in common with snake oil schemes and cults than anything vaguely resembling a coherent movement with long-term objectives.
What do you think? comments?
The trial and conviction of Ariel Castro is the one of the more recent supposedly “shocking” crime stories to dominate american mass media. To summarize it in one sentence- the guy kidnapped, imprisoned and raped three young women for over a decade while simultaneously living an unremarkable and outwardly normal life.
As usual, talking heads in the mass media have come out with their own interpretations of what drove that guy to do what he did. There are those who see it as evidence for the existence of “true” evil, while others interpret it as the actions of a deranged and mentally ill man. Yet others see it evidence of a decline in neighborliness and social cohesion. However almost every single one of these talking heads and media pundits seem to agree that what Ariel Castro did was very abnormal, unusual and bizarre.
But were his actions abnormal, unusual or bizarre?
And this brings us to an important, though rarely asked, question- how do we determine whether any given behavior or action is normal or not? Are there any hard and fast rules for what is OK or not OK? Let us start by looking at human history over the last 100-150 years. During that period many behavior and actions most of us would today denounce as abhorrent, at least in social settings, were considered normal and socially acceptable.
Slavery and ‘Jim Crow’ was once totally acceptable and legal.. and some would say the later is still well and alive, if under a different name. Using child labor in hazardous industries was once very common and considered an integral part of capitalism. Killings millions of minorities, like the Jews and Armenians, was also totally legal and socially acceptable. Eugenics was once considered progressive social policy and sending millions of men to die for the sole purpose of lining the pockets (and fluffing the egos) of rich, old and decaying impotent white men was once considered normal. There are therefore no hard and clear boundaries to what is normal and what is not, regardless of what paid sophists (academics and intellectuals) say or write. And this brings us to the next important question that even fewer people want to ask..
Were the actions of Ariel Castro typical of American society in the 2000s or were they truly deviant?
Let us start with the part about kidnapping and imprisoning innocent people. As many of you know, extraordinary rendition of people suspected for “terrorism” is a routine and publicly accepted part of the war on “terror”. Almost nobody seems to care that most of the suspects apprehended under this extrajudicial way of doing things are either low-level members or innocent people who happen to have the same names as suspects. Then there is the whole business of secret prisons and torture facilities, often run in other countries by governments that are friendly or compliant with the USA. You might have also heard about Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. The point is that kidnapping and imprisoning innocent people is totally normal and acceptable in the USA, as long as they are not white.
But what about all that torture, sexual and psychological abuse that those three girls were subjected to. Surely that has no equivalent in the contemporary american society, or does it? To answer that question we have to look at who is imprisoned in the USA, for what reasons and under what conditions. Once again, some of you might be aware that the USA leads the world in incarcerating its own people- both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population. The rate of incarceration has also lost any linkage to the amount of violent crime committed. Moreover, a large and important sector of the american economy is now based upon arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people- all under the guise of ‘law and order’.
Then there is the question of who is incarcerated and who is not. The american system has no interest in prosecuting “white-collar” crime unless the suspects is non-white or a small time operator who made many powerful enemies. People who made billions by selling useless or harmful drugs that killed tens of thousands will never be jailed. Similarly, those who made billions and trillions by destroying the lives of millions through ‘legal’ financial engineering will never see the inside of a jail cell. Yet average or poor people who broke some inane and almost never enforced law are often dragged in court and sentenced to prison. Similarly low-level pot or crack dealers often end up in jail for years or decades even if they have not been violent. To put it another way, american “justice” is a bad joke that only a stupid, fat, impotent and decaying CONservative white moron can believe in.
The conditions in most american jails are also pretty grim. Most are overcrowded places with lots of internal violence, rape, drugs etc. Then there is the whole issue of solitary confinement, its effects and supermax prisons.
To put it another way, the american system pays millions of people to do far worse to millions others than what Ariel Castro did to those three women. It is too bad that Ariel Castro chose the occupation of a school bus driver and had to do those things “illegally” when he could done all that and more “legally” if he worked as a police or corrections “officer”. He could also have made much more money doing that than as a school bus driver.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
More Cuties with Toned Behinds: Aug 11, 2013 – Even more toned cuties with amazing butts
Cuties with Toned Behinds: Aug 11, 2013 – Slim and pretty cuties with toned butts
Reclining Smooth Spread Cuties: Aug 10, 2013 – Relaxed, smooth and spread cuties
Some of you might have heard, or read, that a semi-famous attentionwhore aka Hugo Schwyzer suffered an online meltdown on Twitter yesterday. In case you don’t know much about Hugo Schwyzer or his latest public breakdown, the next three links might be helpful.
His original “manic” tweets can still be seen on his account at @hugoschwyzer, if you are so inclined. But why go through all that trouble when I have copied the best ones for you guys. So, without further ado, here are his most revealing tweets arranged from the chronologically newest to oldest with a little extra commentary from yours truly.
I suffer from bipolar disease with psychotic features. But I do not think that truth erases the harm I have done. It puts in a context. 4:36 PM – 9 Aug 13
Sure, whatever you say Hugo.
When I quit the Good Men Project, I timed the announcement for maximum effect. I was such a manipulative jerk. 12:56 PM – 9 Aug 13
Unlike all those other times you were not?
I’ve been carrying the weight of so much, and then to carry the weight of so much dislike from so many of you was too much. 12:55 PM – 9 Aug 13
No, you got caught in your own web of lies. If you hadn’t been caught, none of this would have happened.
I lied about being sober as long as I was. I had relapsed before. 12:54 PM – 9 Aug 13
Who is surprised?
I am so sorry I wrote that terrible piece about my ex who was a lesbian. 12:53 PM – 9 Aug 13
The one you tried to kill? or the one you.. never mind.
That OK Cupid piece? Ally Foggg was right. I just wanted to look cool. 12:53 PM – 9 Aug 13
Are you referring to this masterpiece? No One is Entitled to Sex: Why We Should Mock the Nice Guys of OkCupid
I’m sorry that I kept mocking socially awkward men as creeps as a way of making myself look better. 12:52 PM – 9 Aug 13
Then again, most PUA and game bloggers are no different.
I am just so sorry. I am just so sorry. I lied and manipulated and cheated so many of you. 12:48 PM – 9 Aug 13
Who is surprised? really?
I did such awful things but I also wanted to belong to your community so badly. But my neediness and my stupidity pushed you away. 12:44 PM – 9 Aug 13
Which community? or maybe you just wanted to get into yet another hot, young and adoring piece of ass?
I did promote others but I secretly wanted to be THE male feminist. 12:41 PM – 9 Aug 13
Is anyone still surprised? Anyone?
Yes, I threw a lot of people under the bus. 12:41 PM – 9 Aug 13
Once again, that is common knowledge.
Oh, and the folks who are angry at me right now? Of course they know this is too little too late. 12:34 PM – 9 Aug 13
It has always been a little too late.
Being microinfamous sucks. 12:27 PM – 9 Aug 13
Ya, you won’t get that big book deal about how you finally saw the light.
Or find a better way of doing it because I did deserve it. I was a shitty writer and I was a fraud and I did try to kill my ex. 12:26 PM – 9 Aug 13
We already knew that, but it is nice to hear it from your own mouth.
The point is simple and clear and sane. I have been a self-aggrandizing fraud from day one. @studentactivism will tell you. 12:20 PM – 9 Aug 13
Come on, is anybody surprised by this ‘revelation’?
THIS IS REALLY ME. Hugo Benedict SChwyzer, born 1967, PhD UCLA. 12:17 PM – 9 Aug 13
So yes, I sexted with a hooker. Yes, I wanted to have my students watch me screw James Deen. 12:17 PM – 9 Aug 13
Doesn’t that go against what you used to write and teach. Then again, academics are among the biggest hypocrites.
My diagnosis, by the way? Bipolar disease with psychotic features plus BPD. 12:15 PM – 9 Aug 13
It is too bad that being a CONman is not yet a recognized psychiatric diagnosis.
I loved being the most notorious bad boy male feminist out there. 12:13 PM – 9 Aug 13
And I mocked the suffering of abuse survivors who were triggered by my work. 12:11 PM – 9 Aug 13
PUA and game blogs are no different, so you are in good company.
I’m a monstrous hypocrite. 12:10 PM – 9 Aug 13
We all knew!
…that I was sleeping with a 23 year-old. And sexting a 27 year-old. Not my students at least. 12:10 PM – 9 Aug 13
Surprisingly, that is actually an improvement over your past.
I cheated on my wife and pretended to be reformed. I wrote an article in the Atlantic condemning age-disparate relationships the same week. 12:09 PM – 9 Aug 13
Who finds this shocking or out of character? Does even your wife find that shocking? Come on..
I fucked porn stars I met through my classes. 12:06 PM – 9 Aug 13
Ya, we kinda guessed that.
If youo think these tweets are off, you’re so wrong. AT LAST the authentic Hugo. He’s here! No mask. 12:05 PM – 9 Aug 13
Is there a real human being underneath there? somewhere?
I appropriated the language of redemption, I knew which buttons to push, I used sex and charm and whiteness and it usually worked. 12:04 PM – 9 Aug 13
Yup, we know you are clever.
I built a brand (remember “off-brand”) on being something completely false to get approbation. 12:01 PM – 9 Aug 13
Is anybody surprised??
I am so so sorry that I let myself be like this. But I wanted atttention so f-ing bad. This was all about attention. 12:00 PM – 9 Aug 13
No, it was about more opportunities for sex with your students, groupies and hookers. Wanting attention is just a polite word for that.
I made my writing all about me. I centered my pain and my cock. and I sold it to you. 11:58 AM – 9 Aug 13
It was rather obvious to most readers of your dribbles and diatribes.
Which is how I got the gigs I got. I learned clickbait. Sometimes I fucked my way into a gig. 11:56 AM – 9 Aug 13
Am I the only one who is not surprised by this?
And yes, I networked like a motherfucker to get promoted. 11:55 AM – 9 Aug 13
Like every other academic. Welcome to the sophistic whore club!
I was never qualified to teach any gender studies courses. I talked my way into all these gigs. 11:55 AM – 9 Aug 13
If it makes you feel any better, so did everybody else.
I read a little bit about porn, and figured out how to make it a fun circus for all. 11:48 AM – 9 Aug 13
I read one book of Kimmel’s and made myself an expert on men and masculinity. 11:48 AM – 9 Aug 13
And that would be Jimmy Kimmel the comedian? Great..
I then built a career as a well-known online male feminist on fraudulent pretenses. My mania let me talk a good game. 11:46 AM – 9 Aug 13
Is that what they call lying these days?
My expertise is British medieval church history. I had no business teaching feminism, however well I may have taught it. 11:45 AM – 9 Aug 13
On the bright side, both are very subjective. You can make up any bullshit that sounds ‘right’ and nobody is wiser.
So the real story you all missed is that I talked my way into teaching women’s studies on the basis of 2 undergrad courses only. 11:43 AM – 9 Aug 13
Like most brown-nosing academics.
Oh, and here is his last tweet before the ‘manic’ episode. Note the date on this one.
It’s time for me to take an extended hiatus from social media and public writing. Looking forward to a long break and the next adventure. 6:46 PM – 17 Jul 13
So there you have it.. the latest attempts by attentionwhore extraordinaire Hugo Schwyzer to drum up some sympathy for him. Might write more about it in the near future.
What do you think? Comments?