One week ago, a rather unusual murder spree occurred in Isla Vista, California. The person who carried it out, Elliot Rodger, as well as six others died that day and many more were injured. For reasons that I will go into in more detail later, this story grabbed the attention of national and international media. It has also caused quite a stir in social media and the blogosphere. Much has been written about this incident and Elliot Rodger from a number of often mutually contradictory viewpoints. At this time, I have no interest in listing all of them- suffice to say that pretty much every interest group and ideology is using this incident to further their agenda. This incident has however raised many interesting questions, and based on a search of google news and twitter, it appears that one of them is dominating the public conversation about Elliot Rodger and the Isla Vista killings.
Was Elliot Rodger a Misogynist?
Now many women, especially those in media, seem to have made up their mind about his question- regardless of the rather obvious fact that he killed 4 men and 2 women. I, however, am going to take a methodical approach to this question and try to answer it with the available evidence.
As of today, we have three main sources of evidence about what was going on in Elliot’s mind. They are-
1] His 141 page manifesto (downloaded within minutes of it appearing on scribd.com).
2] His YouTube video (again, downloaded within minutes of his name becoming public).
3] Archived postings on a few message boards.
Of these three, the first two are the most useful as they are the most extensive. With that in mind, let us first define the concept of misogyny. While many people now define misogyny in a very broad and nebulous manner to encompass almost everything they want to, the original and more compact definition is more illuminating.
Misogyny = hatred, dislike or mistrust of women.
With this in mind I decided to perform a text string search of Elliot’s manifesto for words such as “hate”, “hatred”, “dislike”, “mistrust”, distrust” and a number of synonyms for those words such as “bitter”, “bitterness”, “contempt”, “disgust”, “detest”, “envy”, “fear”, “loathing” “loathe” and “revulsion”. I wanted to find out the context of his use of those words.
Here are the results (for the manifesto).
“hate” = uncomfortable socks, sitting cross-legged, Maddy Humpreys, Soumaya, Soumaya, attending Bay Laurel elementary school, going to summer camp, Matt Bordier, Soumaya, skateboarder kids, skateboarder kids, grade 6 classmates, Oren Aks, Lucky Radley, Soumaya, finding about sex, his father being away, Monette Moio, all tween girls in his playcircle, Soumaya, everyone in grade 9, Soumaya, Crespi school, Jesse, going to summer camp, cruel girls, his father’s house, Leo Bubenheim, Polina Bubenheim, Leo Bubenheim, telling where his mother lived, injustices of the world, Soumaya, the world, Addison, Addison, Addison, his father and Soumaya, everyone without anxiety, sexual lives of other people, life, his classmates, Chance (black guy), popular-boy types, people asking him why he was so quiet, a couple at the camino real marketplace, Angel (guy), others realizing how pathetic his life was, others realizing how pathetic his life was, Spencer, guys with beautiful girlfriends, university history class, Vincent, Brittany story’s boyfriend, kids born into wealth, Gary Ross, Gary Ross’s friends, Alexander Ludwig, fraternity jocks, Spencer, being the shameful grandson, obnoxious and boisterous men, girls who liked such men, feeling trapped and lost, guys at a party, the world, Samuel, sorority girls at UCSB.
Did you notice something odd about that list? The major targets of his hate are men who are sexually successful with women and his step-mother, Soumaya. The closest he comes to saying that he hates women are when he talks about girls (or women) who teased and/or ignored him. Curiously, he also mentions several times that he knew or felt that girls hated him. Moving on..
“hatred” = Riley Anapol, Lucky Radley, skateboarding, boys around him at fourteen years of age, Leo Bubenheim, people with a sexual life, people who have sex, people who have sex, seeing young couples, seeing young couples, four thugs who egged him, towards the world, towards life, towards the world and society, Addison, jocks with hot girlfriends, Leo Bubenheim, online people who brag about their girlfriends, towards the world, a young couple, towards the world, a young couple, a guy with a hot girlfriend, Alexander Ludwig, everyone especially women, over not finding a girlfriend, towards all women, behavior of women around him, women, women attracted to other men, female gender, women rejecting him, spoiled and rich USC girls, Samuel, all those women who rejected him.
While he now talks a bit about hating women- he is actually quite precise about what type of woman he hates. Moreover he still hates men who are sexually successful with women far more than he hates women. Also note that he often talks about the hatred towards the rest of the world brewing inside him. My point is that, so far we have not seen any evidence that he hated women (as a group) more than the men who were sexually successful with them. Moving on further..
“dislike” = Keaton Webber, change to his life, staying at his father’s house, being at his father’s house, going to Morocco, low-class students, a teacher, some hotel.
What about girls or women? Isn’t it odd that he spends more time talking about his dislike at staying at his father’s house.. Anyway, let us go to the next word string.
“mistrust” = 0 hits
“bitter” or “bitterness” = irony of his first american friend being a girl, growing up, growing up, not being popular, being teased, WoW players, his father losing money, not meeting women, Addison, struggle against other men, hatred towards the world, at being lonely, online argument, envy of rich kids, not being able to bring a date, Lemelson’s Christmas party, Jazz (guy), Addison, talking to his father’s friends.
Well, not much about girls or women. But he sure hated this Addison guy- he is almost all of the word association lists. Anyhoo. on to the next word string.
“contempt” = Vincent, some couple.
“disgust” = cool kids, Addison, boisterous jocks, girls who like boisterous jocks, humanity.
Addison makes an appearance in another word list. He also talks about how girls probably find him disgusting. and onwards we go..
“detest” = 0 hits.
“envy” = dominate his life, Matt Bordier, Robert Morgan, Julian, Neil Davis, other boys at school when he was 14 years old, Leo Bubenheim, Jeffrey, Leo Bubenheim, Max, anyone with a sex life, Addison, Leo Bubenheim, jock with pretty girlfriend, anybody with a sex life, teenage couples, Julian Ritz-Barr, Julian Ritz-Barr, Vincent, Jazz, jazz, Philip and Addison,
I don’t see any girl or woman in that list.. but I can see Addison.. again! Holy shit.. this guy must be some prick.
“fear” = play, school, cool kids, middle school, middle school, middle school, seeing pictures of naked girls for the first time, of humiliation, around two girls, of girls, of girls, of girls, of getting nervous, never being able to drive, life in Santa Barbara, living independently, never being able to join in on the fun, of couple he threw coffee at, his inability to attract women, going to Isla Vista without friends, of a woman’s judgement, that some one might find out about his plan, fear of not winning the lottery, fear of being caught, lottery result, death but less than living like that, might get into trouble, operation on his ankle, starting college still crippled, of killing his father, of committing mass murder, that cops might discover his plan, cops showing up again.
So he was afraid of women, rather than wanting them to be afraid of him. Isn’t that a bid odd for a highly misogynistic killer. Oh well.. moving on
“loathing” and “loathe” = himself.
“revulsion” = working hard each day for twenty years to make a million or two.
So, there you have it! There is not much in his manifesto to suggest that he hated, disliked or mistrusted women- in any context other than those who rejected him and were having sex with boisterous and popular guys. Also, his hatred for women is far more individual than his hatred of other men. Perhaps more importantly, he has far higher levels of hatred for all those men who are sexually successful with women. If anything, his manifesto suggests that Elliot was misandrist, not misogynist. But who care about that..
Since this post is already almost 1500 words long, it is best to not add to it. Therefore, I will discuss his videos in an upcoming post.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Impromptu BJs: May 28, 2014 – Cute amateurs giving spontaneous head.
More Impromptu BJs: May 28, 2014 – More cute amateurs giving spontaneous head.
Over the last five years, all of us have read a flurry of articles about the slow but certain demise of the american middle-class. While each group of commentators offers different (and often mutually contradictory) explanations for this change, it is obvious that the phenomena they are all talking about is very real. It is also clear that the phenomena in question started 2-3 decades (most likely in the early 1980s) and has been gathering pace since then. Unfortunately most of the well-known explanations for this phenomena are based in presentation of numbers and statistics- perhaps deliberately, to obscure the real extent of this phenomena. I will take a different approach to show how you how far the american middle-class has really fallen.
I am guessing that most of you have seen more than a few episodes of “The Simpsons”. While many aspects of this show, from its longevity to changes in quality over the years, have been the subject of numerous articles and discussions- a few important ones have largely escaped scrutiny. I wrote about one of those ignored, but important, aspects about two years ago. Recently it struck me that the show was also a commentary, if largely unintentional, about the changing fortunes of middle-class america.
To fully comprehend what I am going to say next, you have to first understand that the show is not set in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s or the 2010s. So what era is it set in? The first clue comes from the names of the characters. Homer, Marge, Lisa, Maggie and many other characters in that show are named, and partially modeled, after the family members and childhood of the show’s creator- Matt Groening who was born in 1954. It is therefore very likely that Simpsons is actually set in the late 1960s, an era which is now seen as the peak of the american middle-class. This insight also helps us to understand an important, but often ignored feature, of that show.
The simpson family, though clearly working class, enjoys a standard of living which we today associate with the upper middle-class.
Here are a few examples of what I am talking about.
1] Homer Simpson has a decent, if somewhat boring, job at a nuclear power plant. It is noteworthy that he has only finished high school and was hired during a period of rapid expansion. He can also afford, if sometimes barely, to support a family that includes his wife and three kids. The family lives in an old but OK house in a modest but pretty well maintained neighborhood. Sometimes, he even has extra money to spend on some hare-brained scheme or take a family vacation. His job at the power plant is pretty stable, as are the jobs of his co-workers. Sure.. sometimes there is talk of downsizing, reduction of benefits, problems with adequate health insurance etc. But the owner of that power plant, Monty Burns, always relents and ends up keeping things the way they were.
2] One of the main and recurring antagonist of the show, Monty Burns, is the owner of the nuclear power plant. Depicted as an old and greedy WASP, he nonetheless is very different from the type of people who own and run corporations today. For one, he actually owns and runs his own business. He seems to have very few upper management types in the corporation and certainly nobody except his assistant, Smithers, have any significant influence on him. Contrast this to incestuous groups of “professional” CEOs and board members (and their butt-boys) running most corporations today. An even more interesting aspect of Monty Burns is that his main business, the nuclear power plant, produces something real- electricity. It also creates and maintains many non-minimum wage jobs for the locals.
3] The Simpson family, though not wealthy by any standards has a comfortable lifesyle. The wife, Marge, can afford to be a stay-at-home homemaker except when Homer temporarily loses his job. The family also has enough money to own two used, but reliable, cars. Though they suffer from less than stellar health insurance coverage, they seem to have enough to get by quite well for everything except catastrophic illnesses. The school that Bart and Lisa attend, while not great, is OK- especially when compared to schools in non-upper middle class areas today. They seem to represent an era when decent, if not great, publicly funded social goods were available to almost everyone in the USA (except blacks, of course). Their neighbors, while often annoying, are reasonably decent people of a similar socio-economic class.
The Simpsons is therefore about an era (1946-1979) when even an average, and not particularly, bright guy could get a well-paid and stable blue- or white- collar job and live a pleasant, if not luxurious, life. What was once considered normal for the median person in the USA is now seen as something bestowed by the 1% (or 0.1%) on the 9%.The other 90% are SOL.
The Simpson lifestyle was considered lower-middle class in the 1960s. Today it is considered upper-middle class.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Artsy Cuties: May 20, 2014 – Nekkid cuties in artsy poses.
More Artsy Cuties: May 20, 2014 – More nekkid cuties in artsy poses.
These links are NSFW.
Spanked Cuties: May 12, 2014 – Spanked cuties with reddened behinds.
More Spanked Cuties: May 12, 2014 – More spanked cuties with reddened behinds.
One of the important, though largely ignored, changes in the last thirty years involves the increasing degree to which societies have begun conflating credentials with actual ability and competence. This trend is now at all levels of society from who gets hired and promoted at some mediocre corporation to who can run for elected office such as the presidency.
Here is a recent example: Can I get a job at SpaceX after graduating from a low-ranked engineering program? I have quoted the most important and relevant parts below.
I ran recruiting at SpaceX for almost 6 years; everything about how they recruit is part of the footprint myself and my team created – so hopefully you’ll find this input helpful, though it will only magnify the challenge that lies before you. SpaceX aggressively pursues top collegiate talent; but because the hiring bar (mandate per Elon) is top 1% of the human population – we focus on top ranked engineering programs because their strict acceptance requirements are a good prefilter and remove 90% of the bell curve, thereby automatically bringing us to about top 10% of the college population; making our haystack much smaller and thus easier to find the proverbial needles.
The rest of that answer is full of the usual crap that almost all of you must have encountered in any basic interaction with HR personal in pretty much every single corporation. FYI- this particular piece caught my attention because I know a thing or two about rocket engine and launcher technology etc.
Here is what you should know: Modern rocket engine and launcher technology was mostly developed and perfected between 1939 and late-1970s. There has been no breakthrough in the area of chemical rocket engine (fuel or mechanics) in the last forty years. SpaceX is basically trying to build what both the Russians and the Americans perfected over four decades ago. The business model of SpaceX can be best summarized as building relatively inexpensive medium-large LOX-kerosene fueled rocket launchers and accessories in the USA.
The funny wrinkle in their vision of low-cost rocketry is that the ESA, RFSA and the CNSA already offer dollars-per-kg rates that are comparable to those promised by SpaceX.
I should also point out that ESA, the RFSA and its soviet-era predecessor, the CNSA and ISRO were able to develop to develop all that technology and hardware without hiring ivy-league graduates. There is also the troublesome question of why would you want to hire so called “top level” talent to copy 40-year old technology. Well.. actually that is not quite true. SpaceX currently does not even have the technology found in older russian LOX/Kerosene engines such as the RD-180, which itself is a half-sized version the 1970s-era RD-170.
So what is going on? Why can’t SpaceX achieve what the Russians did without much fanfare (and electronic computers) four decades ago? Is it the lack of resources? Is it the lack of government help- both technical and financial? Or is it a basic conflict between their corporate ideology and reality? In my opinion, the problem is largely due to the unbridgeable gap between corporate thinking and reality. Let me explain..
American corporations have for the last few decades been increasingly run by managers, lawyers and other assorted CONartists. The people who make decisions, policy and control money in american corporations have therefore little or no understanding of either the underlying technologies or what it takes to makes things work in the real world. They are mentally incapable of grasping the world that lies beyond PowerPoint presentations, Excel sheets, frequent meetings, committees and subcommittees, buzzwords and endless political scheming.
But what does any of this have to do with the inability of american companies to even properly copy 40-year old technology?
Well.. it comes down to who they hire. People who do not understand the technology behind the products made by the corporations they lead try to cover up their ignorance by going for impressive sounding names, brands and ideas. They therefore hire people who graduated from institution with impressive sounding names and believe that doing so will magically result in some new product or breakthrough. So, why does it not work like that? Why are the graduates of ivy-league and other “prestigious” institutions almost always inferior to their more “common” counterparts at actual innovation or even just getting things done?
Let me answer that question by posing another question- Who is admitted into “prestigious” educational institutions and on what criteria? Here is my answer.. Such institutions admit people who are 1] good at taking tests 2] good at self promotion and 3] good at social interactions. Do you see the problem? Well, if you did not.. here it is.
“Prestigious” universities discriminate against those with technical ability and competence.
Therefore the graduates of such institutions tend to be less than competent and yet simultaneously full of belief in their innate superiority. It does not help that the “prestige” of their institutions allows them to shift blame for their incompetence onto the people who work for them. They are mostly driven by fads, trends, buzzwords and delusions of grandeur rather than anything approximating reality. The end result of hiring a lot of such people is that your research and development programs don’t progress as expected and you cannot even replicate what the soviet space program achieved four decades ago.
But none of this matters to the people in charge of companies like SpaceX, because breaking out their familiar thinking patterns would shatter the fragile (yet internally self-consistent) bubble of lies they inhabit- and nobody wants to rock the boat.
What do you think? Comments?
Enjoy this funny clip from the second season of “Inside Amy Schumer” while I try to finish a few longish posts about more abstract ideas.
These links are NSFW. Will post a couple of new articles tomorrow.
Slim Cuties: May 1, 2014 – Artsy pictures of slim, young and nekkid cuties.
More Slim Cuties: May 1, 2014 – More artsy pictures of slim, young and nekkid cuties.
These links are NSFW.
Spanking Art: Apr 23, 2014 – Line drawings of spanked cuties.
More Spanking Art: Apr 23, 2014 – More line drawings of spanked cuties.
A recent and funny clip from CollegeHumor.
Since one of my more recent post is attracting a lot of attention from CONservatives, here is a clarification of what I really think about them. Let us begin with the short version.
CONservatives in human societies fill the same role as vectors and chronic carriers of infectious diseases do for the pathogens causing them. To put it another way, CONservatives (vectors and chronic carriers) do all the heavy lifting and work for pathogens (elites) while also suffering from the effects of pathogen (elite) infestation.
Most of you are aware that diseases such as malaria, trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis etc require an intermediate living organism of a species distinct from the final host to complete their life cycle and keep on surviving. What most of you probably don’t realize is that being an intermediate host for diseases such as malaria is not particularly advantageous to the vector. Indeed, there is almost no good example of a vector-transmitted pathogen enhancing the survival of the vector. The converse is however often true and the intermediate hosts of protozoa, bacterial and viral diseases often exhibit considerably increased mortality from being vectors.
CONservatives are the, often willing, vectors of ideas and concepts that inflict misery, poverty and deprivation on other people. However these stupid tools are rarely the real beneficiary of their own actions. The infected mosquito, tsetse fly, sand fly or other arthropod vectors never benefit from transmitting the pathogens they carry. Similarly CONservatives almost never benefit from supporting the ideologies and policies they support and work to implement. CONservatives, like those arthropod vectors of infectious diseases, are the expendable tools used by the pathogens (elites) to further their own welfare.
CONservatives are the cannon fodder of wars fought for the financial benefit of the elites. They are the disposable workers sacrificed in the process of “creative destruction” of capitalism. They are the morons who vote for people who promise to keep those non-whites down. They are the tools who will support any guy who tells them that they great and then screw them- again and again. They will voluntarily slave away for anybody who gives them a little power and the intellectual justification to abuse someone who is even more desperate.
As I have said before, pathogens (elites) cannot exist, thrive and spread without vectors (CONservatives) doing all of the dirty work for them.
What do you think? Comments?
Regular readers of my blog know that I have never seen CONservatives as anything other as subhumans who will willingly slave away to enrich their real exploiters. Rarely does a day go by when I do not come across one more example of why people of the CONservative mindset are subhuman tools. The remainder of this post is based upon one recent, and very clear instance, of why CONservatives are subhumans.
Edit: Here is a more recent post that explains the gist of my argument.
It all started with a recent article in Washington Post about the effect of rising university tutions on the ability to students to feed themselves- More college students battle hunger as education and living costs rise
When Paul Vaughn, an economics major, was in his third year at George Mason University, he decided to save money by moving off campus. He figured that skipping the basic campus meal plan, which costs $1,575 for 10 meals a week each semester, and buying his own food would make life easier. But he had trouble affording the $50 a week he had budgeted for food and ended up having to get two jobs to pay for it. “Almost as bad as the hunger itself is the stress that you’re going to be hungry,” said Vaughn, 22, now in his fifth year at GMU. “I spend more time thinking ‘How am I going to make some money so I can go eat?’ and I focus on that when I should be doing homework or studying for a test.”
To make a long story short, the above linked article talks about how rising tuition costs and decreasing (or harder to obtain) student financial aid causes food insecurity for university students who do not come from well-to-do backgrounds. As many of you might also be aware of, university tuition fees in the USA have consistently grown at rates far higher than gross inflation, wage growth or even health care for the last thirty years. It is noteworthy that this rise in fees has not translated into wage increases for the tenured university faculty or support staff. Indeed, universities are now heavily dependent on temporary sessional instructors who get paid only a fraction of what the shrinking tenured faculty makes. FYI- all of that extra income from ever-increasing tution fees is mostly spent on “wealth” management for the university, sports teams and athletic facilities, salaries for a greatly expanded administrative staff and other stuff that has no positive effect on the quality of teaching.
So what aspect of this article ticked me off. Well.. it was not so much the article, as some of the comments that made me write this post. Here are a few of the more typical examples.
ChrisMallory 4/15/2014 8:48 AM MDT
Have these special snowflakes never heard of Ramen noodles? Get them on sale at 10 packs for a dollar and eat like a king.
joepah 4/11/2014 12:28 PM MDT [Edited]
You can buy a 50 lb sack of rice for $25 and a 5 quart bottle of veg oil for $10. 25 lbs dried black bean $23. 1 lb salt $1. Not the most exciting food but provides all the fat and carbos to keep you going. Flour lard and veggies can be cheap. Give me $100 at month and I can feed a college student, IF they are willing to learn to cook.
ceemanjo 4/10/2014 6:48 PM MDT
I was hungry every night my first year of graduate school, lost fifteen pounds and I wasn’t fat to start with. After a while, I learned that you can live off potatoes and beans. It is truly amazing how little you can spend on food. Do you want to live like that your whole life? No. But it doesn’t hurt for a few years. I look back with some fondness to my struggling student days. I think we should lighten up about this. It is actually a good thing for college kids to be hungry sometimes, good learning experience. A good inexpensive college dish is ramen with cabbage and carrots. You can fill your stomach for less than a dollar. Ramen isn’t much good for you but it fills you up and the cabbage and carrots are. Potatoes are cheap.
Terrence Lorelei 4/10/2014 4:47 PM MDT
Well, something tells me that Mommy and Daddy (or, Mommy and Mommy) won’t really let their little darlings starve. Also, the ridiculous arguments about following the models of some silly Euro-weenie nation simply do not hold water; a nation of 330 MILLION in a free-enterprise system cannot be compared to a mini-nation of 10 million socialists, all living just above the poverty line due to government confiscation of most of their paychecks. But then again, the spoiled American under-25 crowd simply will never understand that they are NOT owed anything until they earn it.
CivilUser 4/10/2014 12:20 PM MDT
What happened to Ramen Noodles? They still sell those dont they? Thats what got me through school. That and a used rice cooker that always had rice cooking. Meal plans at my school were for the kids who had parents with money.
While comments such as the ones highlighted above are now becoming the minority opinion, they were until very recently the majority opinion. But why? It should be obvious to all but the brain-damaged that there are no real constraints in providing every single person on this planet more than enough to eat. The technology and resources to do so have existed for a few decades now. Nor is money a real issue, partly because it is not real to begin with and can be produced in unlimited amounts at a touch of a button. Furthermore, the USA spends infinitely more money on far more dubious causes such as “stealth” aircraft that cannot fly in the rain, nation “building” in the middle-east and spying on its loyal “citizens” (subjects).
It is clear that food insecurity in university students is not due to a real lack of food, money or social utility. It is about creating artificial scarcity.
But why? What is the rationality behind creating artificial scarcity? Well.. while there is no rationality behind creating artificial scarcity, there is certainly a logic- a CONservative one. As I have said before, CONservatives are almost exclusively motivated by making the lives of someone else, usually less fortunate than them, miserable. They are, as a group, incapable of relating to other humans and indeed any other life forms in any other way. CONservatives have no real interest, or belief, in concepts such as personal responsibility, frugality, utility, or honesty. Indeed, they only invoke such concepts to try to shame and handicap naive people. CONservatives are just a bunch of pathetic parasites who were not lucky or smart enough to make it into the big leagues. They spend the rest of their pathetic lives trying to win small personal victories by trying to screw over other people. The only real and lasting solution to this problem involves the sudden disappearance of all CONservatives and their progeny.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Slender Cuties: Apr 19, 2014 – Young and slender cuties.
More Slender Cuties: Apr 19, 2014 – More young and slender cuties.
Even More Slender Cuties: Apr 19, 2014 – Even more young and slender cuties.
In the last few weeks, I have been working on a bunch of posts that deal with how the upper-middle class mindset is one of (if not) the biggest hindrances to any gradual and useful change in the current system. Though most of these specific example driven posts are still not complete, it occurred to me that many of them have similar underlying themes. The current post explores one of those themes. For the purposes of this post “white-collar” is used to denote people who either have, or aspire for, desk jobs with some petty power. They include middle-level managers, executives, doctors, lawyers, academics, engineers, scientists and pretty much anyone who gets credit and a little extra money for the work of people under them.
One of the important, but rarely discussed, differences in attitude between blue-collar and white-collar workers concerns how they related to their peers. While the typical interactions of blue-collar workers with their peers are far from good, let alone ideal- they seem to generally have significantly better inter-personal relations with their peers than white-collar workers. You might have also noticed that blue-collar labor unions have been far more common and numerous than white-collar unions. But why would that be the case? Why are blue-collar workers more likely to participate in groups which also limit their maximal potential in exchange for more security and better working conditions? More importantly, why are white-collar types so averse to labor unions?
In my opinion, it comes down to recognizing something that is obvious- but which most white-collar (and upper middle-class) types deliberately avoid thinking about. Indeed, they spend all their lives trying to do the exact opposite.
Only an idiot would deliberately and earnestly compete against his or her peers.
The most important difference between blue-collar and white-collar workers is not about differences in levels of formal education, artistic tastes or social attitudes. It is bout how they see their peers. Blue-collar types tend see their peers as colleagues (good or bad) who are in the same boat they are in. White-collar types see their peers as life-long adversaries who do not belong in the same boat they are in. Some also believe that they “really” belong to a much more exclusive boat and were just plain unlucky to land in their one they are in.
Almost every white-collar type sees his peers as his or her biggest enemy. His (or hers) biggest ambition in life is to somehow triumph over them and move to a “better” place. This is also why white-collar types are so readily seduced by ideas such as “IQ”, prestigious educational institutions, meritocracy, work ethic, thrift, hard work and all those other beliefs used by the rich parasites to exploit them for their own ends. That is also why they, more so than the parasitic rich, exhibit NIMBY tendencies.
The white-collar types live in a world of perpetual covert strife and intrigue; a world in which all human relationships carry a precise (and often very low) monetary value. They live and thrive by gaming the system. These scams range from entrance exams to certain high income (by middle-class standards) professions, choosing the right social circle, the right zip code, the right school district, the right hobbies, the right vacations, the right causes and professed beliefs.
They will invest years of their lives in “education” also known as credentialing and compete with each other to attend supposedly prestigious institutions. They will work extra hard against each other to make their already rich parasitic employers richer and become their loyal dogs and enforcers. They will almost never question prevalent beliefs and try to assert their superiority by trying to mock those who point out the obvious. They will always spend more time detailing their life choices to assert their superiority even if they seldom enjoy what they are doing- kinda like talking about diverse sexual positions without actually enjoying any of them.
They will spend every waking moment trying to rise above and screw over their peers.
And this brings us to the obvious followup question- Why don’t the blue-collar types generally exhibit this level of peer hate and contempt? I believe that this to do with a different worldview. White-collar, and other semi-autistic types, can only see what they want to see and yes.. “education” plays an important role in this creating this highly filtered world view. The blue-collar types, not possessing the mental filters of their white-collar counterparts, can see much more- including stuff that clearly contradicts official dogma. They are also far more willing to call out the obvious lies rather than politely tow the official line. Consequently they make bad managers, henchmen and flunkies for the parasitic rich.
What do you think? comments?