In the previous part of this series, I briefly talked about my theory about why married women almost universally seem to lose interest in sex with their husband. I also made the observation that this particular behavior is conditional to the options of the man in the relationship, especially his ability to leave it. But why would that be so? Why does the ability of a man to leave a relationship easily make it significantly harder for the woman to deny him frequent sex? Let me put that question in another way- why does the mere presence of an ‘out’ option make for the guy have such a drastic effect on the willingness of the woman to have sex with him? Clearly, the ‘out’ option does not add inches to his height or dick, muscle mass to his body or make him more handsome. So what is going on?
Many people, especially those who subscribe to the solipsistic mumbo-jumbo of evolutionary psychology, might say that a man who can easily leave a relationship is demonstrating his higher ‘status’ or “fitness”. But does reality support that belief? Who is more likely to be in a sexless marriage or relationship – a supposedly high status and financially secure guy or someone who plays drums in some semi-famous cover band? How can C- and D-grade celebrities pull pussy of a quality that staid multi-millionaires can only dream of? Why don’t large financial net worths make women wet and horny?
Some sophists might say that fame and celebrity are far more ancient “evolutionary” switches for female horniness than money or education. But there is a big problem with this assertion. Even intelligent and educated women do not marry rich and/or “highly educated” men because of any real physical or emotional attraction. All such marriages are, and have always been, shams based in the need for social approval and financial comfort for the woman. Remember that a woman married to a doctor or manager will cheat on him with a C- grade celebrity, but one in a relationship with a C-grade celebrity will never cheat on him with a doctor or manager.
While there are many possible explanations, such as this one, for why a minor celebrity can pull far more pussy than a billionaire- we are still left with one important but only partially answered question. Why do married women eventually go to great lengths for not having sex with their husbands- especially if he is not ugly, poor or otherwise downright repulsive?
A more complete answer to that question can be found by looking at a similar category of women- the ones who are chronically single and barely having sex.
One of the major falsehoods promoted by game blogs is the idea that almost all non-ugly and chronically single women are having lots of sex. While a minority of non-ugly and chronically single women do indeed have busy sex lives, the majority do not. Now, I am not claiming that the majority of such women are asexual or abstinent and there is every reason to believe that they have occasional booty calls and short-term flings. But none of this occasional sexual activity remotely approaches what they could have in an average non-marital relationship.
So what is stopping them from having such relationships? After all we live in the age where women have well-paying jobs, access to effective contraception and easy treatment of STDs- not to mention a much lower incidence of such diseases. Clearly, these women do not have to overcome real obstacles or face major risks to enter into such relationships- and yet they don’t. But why not? and what does any of this have to do with why married women have progressively less frequent sex with their husbands. Well.. it is connected, but understanding that connection requires you to ask questions that most would never even consider in the first place.
Would chronically single women spend most of their time on the sexual sidelines if they knew that their lack of participation had no negative effect on the sexual lives of men?
While there is no shortage of morons spouting some bullshit about women having little intrinsic sexual desire, how they want to concentrate on their careers or how modern dating is especially risky and full of frauds- a lot of these “common sense” bullshit explanations just does not add up. Let us first consider the claim that women have little intrinsic sexual desire. While that explanation may seem plausible at first, women buy too many romance novels and are a bit too willing to have sex with famous/good-looking men for that to be true. While female sexual desire is not a mirror image of its male equivalent, there is no doubt that it is similarly powerful.
The explanation that women are increasingly career minded is also based in bullshit since most human beings (men and women) work to live. Only the retarded and autistic minority (mostly “clever” men) live to work. Another plausible sounding explanation requires us to believe that “modern” dating is somehow significantly more riskier than it was in the past. However almost every measure of such risk based on real data suggest that people in the past were not much nicer, or much worse, than those alive today.
So what is really going on? Why would a significant minority of mediocre women choose to hang on the sexual sidelines? What do they gain from such behavior and how could it be enough to compensate for the obvious loss?
Well.. it comes down to ego, but not quite in the way most of you understand it. Some of you might think that rejecting men might be a psychological defense mechanism used by mediocre women to deny their own mediocrity. While there might be some truth to the idea that women are more status-obsessed and status-sensitive than men, repeatedly torpedoing your own sex life would be a really odd and expensive way to raise self-perceived status. Moreover, being single past a certain age (say.. 30) actually reduces their status within their peer group. But there is another psychological mechanism that can explain this behavior.
Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.
Confused.. here are is an example. Have you wondered why poverty-stricken whites in the american south were and are so willing and eager to abuse poverty-stricken blacks on behalf of their rich white masters? If you think about it rationally, the poverty-stricken white person does not experience any material gain from abusing the poverty-stricken black person. But they do gain in a non-material way. Specifically, the ability to freely abuse poverty-stricken blacks allows them to scratch their insatiable human itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others. Similarly people who belong to the lower castes in India experience great pleasure from abusing those of even lower castes. In both of the above mentioned examples, actively working against your best interests is preferred over working for it as long as the former comes with an ability to abuse even more desperate and needy people.
Will write more about this particular issue in the next part of this series.
What do you think? Comments?
Here is an interesting and very topical compendium of skits based around the “Feminist Bookstore” from Season 1 of Portlandia.
Towards the end of my previous post in this series, I made a claim/observation about the prime motivation behind most human behavior.
It is as if most human beings are actively driven a unscratchable itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others even if they stand to gain very little from it.
While I had previously suggested that certain behaviors are driven by this urge- it was the first time I said that it pervaded every facet of human behavior/thought including their products such as popular belief systems, schemes of interpersonal interactions and world-views. Now that I have let the proverbial cat out of its bag, let us see if we can apply this insight to better understand some common, but perplexing, human behaviors.
The behavior of women towards men, and other women, is a good place to start- largely because previous theories about what motivates them to behave the way they do are based on unchallenged speculation. Historically the bizarre and highly adversarial behavior of women towards men, including those who apparently care about them, has been blamed on everything from brain size, hormones and socialization. However it is clear that all of those explanations are based in outright bullshit and plausible-sounding lies.
For example, there is no evidence that women are intellectually inferior to men or in any way less mentally developed than men. Indeed, the converse is often true. Therefore explanations about the behavior of women based on their inability to comprehend the ‘big picture’ are utter bullshit. The ‘hormonal’ explanation is basically an updated version of the old brain size/ intellectual capacity explanation. It requires you to believe that periodic hormonal shifts in women somehow result in long-term and progressive mental incapacitation as opposed to small short-term mood fluctuations. The ‘socialization’ explanation is based on the idea that spending time around and interacting with other women makes them adversarial towards men and other women. I will let the reader think through the irrationality of that previous sentence.
The systemically adversarial behavior of women towards men (including the ones they profess/ professed to love) cannot be explained through any popular explanation for such behavior.
Then there are those who believe that such behavior can be explained by a sophistic pseudoscience known as evolutionary psychology. But can it really do that? Is a “discipline” based in sophistic modeling of facts to create fictitious correlations any better than astrology? While I can certainly believe that women might be more horny at some points in their menstrual cycle than others, can we really extend that concept to decisions that have long-term impacts – especially when there is considerable uncertainty about the final outcome? My point is, there is a huge difference between a woman being extra flirty mid-cycle and her using complicated but supposedly unconscious mental calculus to determine the order in which she will have sex with a bunch of guys- some of whom she has not even met yet.
And this brings us to my general theory about the motivation for most human behavior.
As you might have noticed, the previous theories about the reasons underlying the adversarial behavior of women towards men have a few common elements. All of them try to portray women as creatures at the mercy of external circumstances, forces or greater currents of history. It is supposedly always someone or something else’s fault! It is as if they are not as sentient as other human beings. But why do most men want to believe that? Well.. because the alternative is that such behavior is largely endogenous and completely intentional.
So how does applying my idea to real life examples of such behavior look like? Does it provide a better and more complete explanation of observations?
Let us start by talking about the almost universal and progressive decline in sexual activity seen in long-term relationships. Is it really inevitable or “natural”? I am not suggesting that having sex with someone after you have had sex with them for the last decade is as going to be as exciting as it was in the first few weeks of the relationship. However, it also clear that in most long-term heterosexual relationships the amount of sexual contact keeps on dropping to a point where people have sex once or twice a month just to make themselves believe that they are still in a real relationship. Moreover, this drop in the frequency of sexual activity is linked to duration of the relationship rather than the age of the individuals in the couple implying that hormones and aging are not the major factor behind this decline. Furthermore, couples in non-legally binding relationships do not experience the same drop in the frequency of sexual activity as those in marriages.
Now.. most people will tell you that such a decline is due to things like boredom, familiarity, other stresses in life, children etc. But is that true? If all of those factors were the real reasons behind this drop, they would also have a similar effect on the frequency of masturbation. But they don’t! The frequency of masturbation, especially among males, remains fairly constant- especially in comparison to the drop in sexual activity with their female “partner”. Similarly the frequency of sex between gay men in long-term relationships does not exhibit the same sort of precipitous drop as that seen in heterosexual relationships. The precipitous drop in the frequency of sexual activity in heterosexual relationships can therefore be isolated to women. It is either that or men prefer masturbation to a readily available and half-decent blowjob or fuck.
So what might cause women to lose interest in sex? or do they even lose interest in the first place? Well.. based on the number of 30-40 something women who buy vibrators, read romance novels, cheat on their spouses or divorce them and then slut around- it is clear that female desire remains pretty constant even if its expression with their “partners” is greatly reduced. So why would a woman prefer to use a vibrator or slut around with somebody else rather than have sex with her long-term boyfriend or husband. I mean.. using sex toys and cheating is not even mutually incompatible with having frequent sex with the long-term boyfriend or husband in question. So what can best explain this behavior?
In my opinion, a strong basic desire to hurt and abuse the boyfriend or husband for the sake of watching him suffer is the best fit for what is observed. It is not about profiting from inflicting misery on others. It is about enjoying and feeling alive from inflicting misery on others.
Which brings us the next question. Why don’t women pull that same crap in short-term relationships or early in a long-term relationship? Well.. it is about feasibility. Denying sex in short-term relationships or early in long-term relationships will almost certainly make the relationship fall apart. That is also why such behavior is less common or intense in non-legally binding relationships. Any situation where the guy can, or will, walk out on the woman reduces the probability that she will deny sex.
The denial of sex in a relationship which the guy cannot easily abandon is intentional. We can argue about whether such behavior is logical and/or rational, but make no mistake- it is totally intentional.
Will explain my idea with more common examples in future posts.
What do you think? Comments?
It is no secret that my views on human beings as a species have been pretty negative for a long time. I have also made it clear, on at least one previous occasion, that my views are not the result of disappointment and therefore are not typically misanthropic. I tend to see things as they are, rather than as they are supposed or expected to be. As regular readers also know, more than a few of my previous posts have been about the apparent inconsistencies in widely held views about the human mind and observed human behaviors. In a few of those posts, I have explicitly suggested that most human beings are largely driven by the desire to cheat, screw over, damage, hurt and kill others- even if does not confer any measurable advantage to them. While I have my own theories on what drives this almost uniquely human urge, the current post will talk about another aspect of this phenomena- its ubiquity. I will also talk a bit about why this urge will almost inevitably result in human extinction.
Let us start with a recent news-piece about how officials in the Pyrenees are considering how to curb the sexual appetite of Pyros the bear to give his rivals a chance to mate. This news-piece also reminded me of another similar one from a few months ago- Danish zoo that killed Marius the giraffe puts down four lions. While reading both of them makes you wonder about the world view and belief systems of the “officials” in question, almost nobody seems to be asking the most important question- How is interference in the lives of wild animals based on questionable beliefs rational? As you will soon see, the generalized form of this question is intimately connected to what I am going to talk about in the rest of this post.
But before we go any further, let us first be clear about my views on the treatment of animals. While I am against cruelty towards animals, I am not against eating meat or killing animals that are (directly or indirectly) dangerous to human beings. Though I am against the horrible conditions prevalent in the factory farming of animals- especially in north america, I am not against the concept of raising and killing animals for food, as long as it is done in a way that causes minimal pain and suffering to the animals in question. Nor am I against the hunting animals, as long as it is for obtaining food or protecting oneself.
And this brings me to another facet of the problematic relationship between humans and other animals. Large-scale trophy hunting of animals, especially large mammals, was once a very popular pursuit. It reached its peak in the 1840-1914 time period and was responsible for the near extinction of many large mammalian species. Curiously, neither food nor security was the main reason behind such large-scale trophy hunting. So what was it about? Some might say that hunting large animals is about displaying masculine prowess. While that was partially true in the era before long-ranged rifled guns became commonplace, it is really hard to argue that the ability to safely kill an animal from 200 meters with an accurate rifle is somehow linked to masculine prowess. The same questions could also be asked about commercial whaling or clubbing seals by the tens of thousands for fur. So what was all this large-scale animal killing really about? Could it be the act of killing others for no rational reason is more pleasurable than is commonly understood?
Let us now turn our attention to pets. Why do humans have pets? Why do people constantly try to anthropomorphize their pets? Now some of you might say that most humans do infact care about other animals, especially those species that are kept as pets. But is that really true? If that were true why do humans kill so many of the pet animals who cannot find a human owner? Is mass killing of animal pets that cannot find human owners really about their welfare, or is it about something else? And why do humans spend that much time, money and effort to castrate pets, feed them, anthropomorphize them and then try to make them live like humans than the animals they are? On a related note, why were circus acts with animals once so popular? What is the entertainment value of watching lions, tiger and elephants jump through hoops or sit on tables? Why do people go to see animal trick shows at places like Sea World? What about zoos? What pleasure do humans derive from creating subservient animals and then observing their subservience?
Moving on to how human beings behave towards each other.. Why was overt slavery so common in previous eras, even if the slave-owners could not make a worthwhile financial profit from the labors of their slaves? Why go through the trouble of obtaining and abusing people as slaves when the same amount of work could be willingly and enthusiastically done by economically marginalized members of your own group. Why use slaves when there was no shortage of poor and desperate people? Why did rich people of previous eras prefer to have slaves over poorly paid employees? What was the real distinction between slaves and poor people? Does this have anything to do with how humans interact with animals? Could it be that human enjoy having , using, abusing others as slaves rather than taking the most rational way out and hiring people to do a given job?
Then there is the question of money, or more specifically why some people accumulate money beyond any practical ability to spend ever spend it. In a previous series of posts, I had put forth the idea that a few people accumulate money to impoverish everyone else than make their own lives better. Do you really think billionaires want to uplift social morality, educational standards or support LIEbertarian policies because they want to help their “fellow” human beings? Maybe making lost of money is not about showing others that you are better than them. Maybe it is really about willful destruction of the lives of people they do not even know in person. Or consider all institutional and corporate hierarchies. What if they are really about abusing and screwing other others rather than anything related to the supposed function of those institutions? What if bureaucracy is not really about making institutions work, but creating the groundwork for finding creative ways to fuck over other people- especially those you don’t even know. And why are priests of all religions more concerned with disrupting the sexual lives of others than their so-called “god” or public welfare?
The way women see, interact with and behave towards men is another example of this pattern. Why are so many fat white suburban women concerned about prostitution? Why do they want men to jump through all sorts of hoops for a slim chance of having sex with mediocre women? Why are they so concerned about misogyny? Why do ugly middle-aged hags want to be told that they are beautiful? Why complain about guys who treat them well? Why are most divorces initiated by middle-aged women past their physical prime? Why look down on male sexual desire while building your lifestyle on it? I could go on and on, but my point is that the attitude of women towards men is substantially more adversarial than can be explained via anything that even remotely resembles simple competition. It is a much better fit for something that I like to call- maliciousness for its own sake.
Many readers might have, by now, recognized a common thread running through all the above-mentioned examples of human behavior. They all clearly a demonstrate a deep-seated and widespread human tendency to be deceitful, cruel, abusive and murderous for reasons that have almost nothing to with material or monetary gain. It is as if most human beings are actively driven a unscratchable itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others even if they stand to gain very little from it. Human beings as a species will spend their own time, effort and resources to hurt other living creatures just for the joy of doing so.
But why is any of this important? Haven’t human beings being like this for thousands of years? Well.. the simple answer is technology. Previously this particular human tendency was completely contained by technological limitations. People with pre-industrial and early-industrial age technology simply could not do much damage beyond their immediate vicinity. Even large-scale wars, genocides and conquests were moderated by the hard technological limitations. But that is no longer so.. and the (recognized or unrecognized) ability to fuck up the world of humans is real. I also believe that such an event is far more likely to occur as a series of unintentional coincidences, and reactions to them, than anything that is deliberately engineered. This behavioral tendency is also going to be the reason why humans (in their current form) will never become a space-faring species. Travelling between stars, you see, requires energy sources and technologies that would would let a single person kill every other human on the planet. You can be very sure that the development of such technology will result in the extinction of human beings before it is used to make a single starship.
What do you think? Comments?
One of the more repeated and rehashed memes on the internet concerning the ability of women to get sex on their terms can be summarized as:
Fat, ugly and plain-looking women can get laid more easily than good-looking men.
While I do not disagree with the general observation expressed in this statement, one of its not-so-obvious aspect deserves more attention.
Do the men having sex with such women actually enjoy it?
I can almost hear many of the readers say.. “but, but why would men have sex with women if they did not enjoy it?”. This statement is typically followed by something along the lines of “men will fuck anything” or an attempt to sound sophisticated by saying something about “male hormones and the brain”.
However, a lot of men are aware of the difference between “enjoying having sex” and just “having sex”- even though both ultimately result in an orgasm followed by ejaculation. Let me explain the difference between the two in a bit more detail. I have been with a few escorts when the sex was OK, but did not feel much better than masturbation. I have been with many more escorts where the sex was pretty good and felt substantially better than masturbation, but not quite earth-shaking. And there are those with whom the sex was absolutely incredible, draining and pretty much everything you would expect out of great sex.
But why is distinguishing between “having sex” and “enjoying having sex” important? What difference does it make if the guy is just “having sex” with a woman as opposed to “enjoying having sex with her”. Well.. it comes down to what they really are. In my opinion, and experience, “having sex” is identical to masturbating inside a woman. It feels OK and gets the job done, but it is not especially enjoyable or memorable. In contrast, good to great sex aka “enjoying having sex” feels great to amazing and is very memorable.
But how is any of this related to the question posed in the title of this post?
Well.. it largely comes down to the magnitude of sexual attraction experienced by the guy. Sex with a beautiful, or at least pretty, woman is far more likely to be perceived as good or great than if you did it with a plain (let alone fat or ugly) woman. This does not imply that the woman’s sexual technique or personality don’t matter- because they do and will tilt the playing field. However all things considered, a woman’s sexual attractiveness is still the single biggest factor determining the quality of sex with her. Moreover,beautiful and pretty women usually also have better personalities than fat, ugly or plain-looking women.
So why do men keep on having sex with fat, ugly or plain-looking women if the experience is not much better than masturbation? Well there are a bunch of closely related reasons for it, but it comes down to social conditioning- specifically the type that keeps an exploitative and dysfunctional system alive. Society spends a lot of time telling men that having sex with fat, ugly or plain-looking women is “natural” and superior to masturbation. In reality it is quite unsatisfying, extremely expensive and generally not conducive to the enjoyment of life. Sex with pretty or beautiful women, paid or unpaid, on the other hand is much more enjoyable and vastly superior to masturbation. Of course, the social approval cannot keep on going as we now live in the age of ambient internet porn and social atomization.
What do you think? Comments?
Almost two weeks have passed since the Isla Vista Killings, and it seems that the “popular” views about Elliot Rodger fall into two distinct, but not mutualy exclusive, categories. Some say he was misogynist, an issue which I have previously written about, and then are others who say that he was mentally ill.
But was he mentally ill?
Here is the short version of my answer- Elliot Rodger was not mentally ill, by any honest and rational definition of the concept of mental illness. Some of you might say.. “but how can you be so sure, you are not a medical board certified psychiatrist”. To this my answer is- maybe the problem begins with using medical board certified psychiatrists to diagnose mental illness.
Before we go into that issue- let us first define the concept of illness, as applicable to any type of illness or disease. What do we really mean when we use words like ‘illness’ or ‘disease’? And what does being ‘healthy’ imply? If you think hard enough about it, ‘health’ or ‘illness’ are about optimal functioning of one of more organ systems in the body. They are about how all parts of the body are behaving, not what caused that condition. Let me explain that point a bit further, since it has relevance to the Elliot Roger saga.
Accidentally burning yourself while cooking or breaking a bone while playing sports is not a disease or illness- even though the result of those physical insults can be treated as such. Similarly you can get a fever in response to some viral infection, bacterial infection or even a non-infectious cause such as some types of lymphomas. On the other hand, even a so-called ‘natural’ phenomena like growing old (senescence) can be classified as a disease, rather than something that is actually natural like growing up (maturation). My point is that diseases and illness are best defined as a fairly continuous, if sometimes slow, self-sustained downward spiral of organ and body function.
But what is the relevance of any of this to defining mental illness or diseases. Well.. it has to so with what can be considered a mental illness and what cannot. For example- hearing disembodied voices that tell you to kill others or consistently experiencing visual hallucinations is not compatible with normal brain function. Nor is obsessive compulsive behavior that the person implicitly recognizes as irrational. On the other hand- feeling very sad after the death of your child or being depressed in the aftermath of a large adverse life event or after being diagnosed with a terminal illness is, for the lack of a better term, normal or physiological. Similarly being sexually attracted to others of your own sex (homosexuality) is not a mental illness- even though it was considered as such by psychiatry until the 1970s.
When we start talking about Elliot Rodger and mental illness, it is necessary to first determine if his worldview was grounded in measurable reality and whether his shyness was a response to that reality.
Based on his manifesto and YouTube videos, it is clear that Elliot saw himself as a victim of the circumstances of his birth. To be more precise, he thought that his social life would have much better if he was white and had richer parents. I , for one, think that he was absolutely correct about both those factors. It does not take a genius to figure out being a white male (as opposed to a half-asian one) and/or being richer in the very affluent parts of coastal south California would have made him far more socially acceptable and desirable. Heck, even being a black or hispanic male is better than being an asian or half-asian male in SoCal- as far as social desirability is concerned. Now this is almost totally about popular perception rather than objective reality, but people (including girls) make their decisions based on popular perceptions- not objective reality. His assessment of his situation, and predicament, was therefore quite accurate.
Elliot also wrote a lot about being ignored, bullied and put down as a kid- both in school and at home. His behavioral problems started after his still married parents moved to California and got divorced within a couple of years. It is also important to note that the peculiar post-divorce custodial arrangements, his father’s remarriage, his father’s busy schedule, his stepmother’s contempt and his mother losing interest in him after the divorce were not conducive to feeling loved, wanted or secure. While his parents did make sure that he had a financially comfortable lifestyle and upbringing- it is clear that they had both abandoned him. The bully-based culture of the american school system did not make things any better and may have directly contributed to his extreme shyness and aversion towards interacting with new people. In other words, his insecurity and shyness were largely a rational response to his experiences, surroundings and condition.
Similarly, neither his manifesto or YouTube videos show any sign of irrational thinking or grandiose expectations. His manifesto in particular is very well written, factually accurate and accurately captures what he was feeling. Nor were the expectations or desires expressed in it or the videos odd. It seems that he wanted one, or at the most a few serial girlfriends, who were pretty and loved him. He was not asking for sex with hundreds or thousands of women, nor did he see himself as a guy who could get all the pussy he wanted. His wants and desires were, if anything, pretty standard for a guy in his age-group.
Now some of you might say- “but, but.. didn’t the doctor prescribe him some anti-psychotic drug which he did not take”. Well.. if you use that logic, then you also have to believe that all those anti-depressants prescribed to people with mild reactive depression, Ritalin to boys with “ADHD”, and anti-psychotics prescribed to people with PTSD and atypical depression-like symptoms are based in evidence-based medicine. Here is a hint- they are not! It is about physicians trying to show that they are doing something- even if that something is useless or actively harmful.
In my opinion, blaming Elliot Roger’s murder spree on misogyny or mental illness are excuses for people to avoid talking about the real social issues that led him to do what he ultimately did. In an earlier era, we would have blamed his actions on witchcraft, wizardry or devil worship.
What do you think? Comments?
While there is a lot I want to write about the Elliot Rodger saga, time constraints require me prioritize some posts over others. So let us talk about one of the most common talking points of media feminists and their male supporters. I am sure almost all of you have come across one or more tweet, post or article that makes the following assertion.
Society did not owe Elliot Rodger anything, including opportunities for sex with women.
If this statement by so-called “liberal” feminists seems familiar, that is because it a rehash of one of the oldest CONservative tropes aka “Society does not owe the individual anything”. Often invoked to cover over glaring faults, systemic defects and outright dishonesty- it relies on shaming naive people into accepting their exploitation as normal. Of course, the low fertility rates (less new naive suckers) and the spread of information (especially the internet) has made this trope far less effective in the last few decades. This change has however not stopped people from trying to use it. Indeed, those who know of no other argument to justify their bullshit often tend to double down on the old one when they are challenged.
And all of this brings us to an interesting question about the dynamics of groups made up of sentient individuals. These groups, unlike those of insects or fish, are by no means inevitable. Infact, a quick look at human history and pre-history suggests that the kinds of large impersonal societies most of us live in today are the exception, rather than the rule. In a previous post, I had made the point that all groups made up of sentient individuals require a certain set of basic conditions to work over an extended period of time. All these basic conditions can be roughly summarized by one word- reciprocity.
A society that demands a lot from individuals without fulfilling its end of the bargain, both the explicit and implicit parts, become dysfunctional and fragile- especially if it cannot find more suckers to replace the ones burnt out by believing those lies and misrepresentations.
So how does that play out in the Elliot Rodger saga? Well, most societies make one peculiar, but often ignored, implicit bargain with its male individual members. It can be summarized as- “doing x,y and z or having a, b and c will almost certainly ensure you sexual access to a non-ugly woman”. Note that this almost always an implicit bargain and not an absolute guarantee. However it is fair to say that it is meant to be true for the vast majority of its male membership.
So what happens if circumstances, or large-scale social changes, make these implicit promises untrue for anything beyond a small minority of its male membership?
The short answer is that you get people like Elliot Rodger. The somewhat longer answer to that question as follows.. A number of large scale social changes such as women working outside the house, easily available oral contraception, social atomization etc has short-circuited many of the “traditional” ways for most men to appear as viable mates to most women. Now, this does not mean that women have lost interest in men. Indeed, the more desirable men have no problems getting tons of women to have sex with them.
These changes have however made many of the older “do x,y, z or have a, b, c to get women” either irrelevant or an afterthought. Society, at large, has however not been honest about these changes and still keeps trying the old stuff. While younger men are increasingly aware of the nature and extent of this gap between reality and official talking points, it fair to say that a significant minority of them have not gotten the message. Moreover, many of those who realize the nature and extent of this deception lose faith in the ability of society to make good on any of its other promises- explicit and implicit.
So while it is technically correct that society or women did not owe Elliot Rodger sex, it is also technically correct that he did NOT have to keep on playing by their rules. Functional contracts, you see, are a two-way street.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you know, Elliot Rodger left a 141-page manifesto about what led him to do what he did on May 23, 2014. Here is one of the links to that document- if you are interested in reading or downloading it and have not done so yet.
Anyway.. after reading that long and well written document, I could not resist thinking about the lyrics of an almost 20-year old NIN song- “Burn”. I have posted a link to a music video of that song below this paragraph and its lyrics are, in turn, posted below the video. Note that the precise scenarios in that video are less important than the overall sum of the message they convey in combination with the lyrics.
This world rejects me
This world threw me away
This world never gave me a chance
This world gonna have to pay
Well I don’t believe in your institutions
I did what you wanted me to
And like the cancer in your system
I’ve got a little surprise for you
Something inside of me
Has opened up its eyes
Why did you put it there?
Did you not realize?
This thing inside of me
It screams the loudest sound
Sometimes I think I could
I look down at where you’re standing
Flock of sheep all on display
With all your lies piled up around you
I can take it all away
Something inside of me
Has opened up its eyes
Why did you put it there?
Did you not realize?
This thing inside of me
It screams the loudest sound
Sometimes I think I could
I’m gonna burn this whole world down
I never was a part of you
I am your savior
I am corruption
I am the angel
Of your destruction
I am perversion
I am your future
Swallowed up in fire
What do you think? Comments?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
The name of a 16th century “philosopher” known as Thomas Hobbes frequently pops up in discussions on a range of topics ranging from the best type of governance to whether a state is necessary for reasonably stable societies to exist. He is best known for writing a book known as Leviathan in which he argues for of a system in which a very small group of “special” people have a monopoly on violence. In his opinion only such a system could guarantee social stability and economic prosperity.One of his most famous quotes is about the state of human society without a top-down repressive regime.
In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
So why am I choosing him as the target of this post? Well.. there are two reasons. Firstly, he is a good example of the prototypical academic who will suck cock and write pretty lies for his paymasters. Secondly, his reputation needs to be demolished to the point where nobody wants to remember him, quote him or even try to recycle any of his ideas.
Many of you might wonder how something like this can be done. Wouldn’t irreversibly tarnishing the image of a long dead, semi-famous, white intellectual be hard. My answer is- not really. Think of all the famous white people who stood behind the idea of eugenics in the early 20th century. How many can you name or, more importantly even want to remember? Similarly the memories of even more famous people like Hitler, who was once widely admired in pre-WW2 UK and USA, are now irreversibly associated with evil. To put it another way, engineering large changes in the public images of famous (or semi-famous) people is actually quite easy.
Moving back to the topic at hand, let us start by looking at his early life and see if it provides any obvious clues as to why Hobbes became a servile cocksucker for the elites of his era.
Born prematurely when his mother heard of the coming invasion of the Spanish Armada, Hobbes later reported that “my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear.” His childhood is almost a complete blank, and his mother’s name is unknown. His father, also named Thomas, was the vicar of Charlton and Westport. Thomas Hobbes Sr. had an older brother, Francis Hobbes, who was a wealthy merchant with no family of his own. Thomas Hobbes, the younger, had one brother Edmund who was about two years older than he. Thomas Sr. abandoned his wife, two sons and a daughter, leaving them in the care of his brother, Francis, when he was forced to flee to London after being involved in a fight with a clergyman outside his own church. Hobbes was educated at Westport church from the age of four, passed to the Malmesbury school and then to a private school kept by a young man named Robert Latimer, a graduate of the University of Oxford. Hobbes was a good pupil, and around 1603 he went up to Magdalen Hall, which is most closely related to Hertford College, Oxford.
Hobbes was not born into a rich family and his early life was somewhat precarious. However, like many of the middle and upper-middle class of today, he had access to centers of credentialism and sophistry aka universities. It is therefore very likely that Hobbes always saw the attainment of elite-approved credentials and subservience to their power as the only realistic way to maintain a somewhat nice and stable lifestyle.
Everything that Hobbes ever said, wrote or argued about must therefore be seen through the lens of his own timid, conformist and sophistic persona. To put it another way, he was an enthusiastic mercenary for anybody who held out the promise of a bit more money, social status and a nice sinecure.
Now let us move on to a critical analysis of the validity of his writings. But before we do that, let me quickly talk about why destroying his reputation is necessary- even 300 years after his death. The arguments put forth in the writings of Hobbes are one of the foundations of modern CONservativism and many other -isms. They, in both their original as well as recycled forms, have been used to justify a variety of socio-economic systems that have brought nothing but impoverishment, extreme misery, starvation and disease to the vast majority of people while greatly enriching a few lucky sociopaths.
One the central arguments in his writings is the idea that all people are highly immoral and only an absolute monopoly of violent force in the hands of a few chosen ones can keep society stable. In some respects his ideas are remarkably similar to those used to justify Chinese-style Legalism. But are most people highly immoral and does monopolizing violent force in the hands of a chosen few really improve the living standards of most people in that society?
While I am certainly not a believer in the myth of noble savages, there is a large body of evidence that hunter-gatherers living in non-precarious environments were not especially avaricious, inhospitable or murderous. Indeed, the lack of centralized authority in such systems makes peaceful inter-group cooperation, diplomacy and exchanges more necessary than it would otherwise be. So the idea that most people will trick, steal from and murder each other without someone in charge is a sophistic lie, projection of the thinker’s own mindset or likely both.
And this brings us to the second part of that particular argument- namely that giving the monopoly of violence to a few “especially suitable” people will make somehow society more stable and better. But how can we decide who is suitable to wield such power and how do we know they are competent? Is there any evidence that supposedly “legitimate” kings are any more competent that those who became kings through less “legitimate” means? How can we define the competence to “rule” when most societies with kings or their secular equivalents (dictators and leaders of one-party systems) are really bad places to be born, or live, in- at least for the vast majority of people?
I am sure that most of you are aware that the material living standards of “civilized” people have been consistently and significantly lower than their hunter-gatherer counterparts except for the last 100-odd years. Moreover the general rise of living standards over the last hundred years are linked to the rise of technology and simultaneous decline of outright autocracy.
The two central foundations of Hobbes worldview therefore have no basis in reality. They do however tell us a lot about his worldview and those of his paymasters.
But why would Hobbes spend so much time and effort on creating this myth? There are those who would like to believe that his worldview was simply a product of the environment he grew up in. I am not so sure and here is why. His early life history suggests that Hobbes had no useful skills beyond learning, conforming and pleasing his superiors. It is also obvious that he always wanted a comfortable and stable lifestyle. So how does a reasonably clever and timid man make a stable and comfortable living in the pre-industrial era?
Obtaining royal (or elite patronage) was the only realistic and feasible occupational choice for a person of Hobbes ability, temperament and desires. In other words, he had to choice to suck elite cock and live reasonably well or not do so and live like an average (poor) person.
Now.. I am not criticizing his decision to suck elite cock to make a stable, decent and trouble-free living. Pretty much anybody in his situation would have done the same. My real problem with Hobbes is that his works are still seen as serious and objective philosophical insights rather than as literary blowjobs to his masters. Doing so is the equivalent of using the collected reminiscences of a house slave as a defense and justification for the institution of slavery.
Hobbes was essentially a clever house slave who got better food, clothing and living quarters because of his ability to flatter his master, justify his brutality and constantly tell him how all those other “lazy and evil” slaves would be lost without the “benevolent guidance” of his master.
What do you think? Comments?