Archive for the ‘Musings’ Category

Was Casual Incest More Common in the Era Before Recorded History?

October 30, 2014 3 comments

Some of my regular readers might remember that I once posted an interesting photo series of Stephanie Seymour and one of her sons at a beach. Recently, she posed in lingerie (along with two of her sons) for a photoshoot in HarpersBazaar. Many people, both online and offline, thought that those photos and the implied relationship with her two supposedly gay sons was “icky” and “unnatural”. While the first type of objection (ickyness) is subjective, the second type (un-naturalness) implies objective evaluation. But, is casual incest among humans really that “un-natural” ?

But before we do that, let us get back to this particular case and be honest about the facts. Firstly, the mother of those teenage boys is a pretty well-preserved ex-supermodel. Secondly, her on-and-off-and-on again husband (and their father) is an rich white guy two decades older than her. Based on her dating history before marrying him (lots of rockstars), it is quite clear that she settled for him because he was filthy rich. It is also clear that she craves attention- perhaps much more so because she used to be a supermodel. It is therefore plausible that the relationship with her two teenage sons has a significant sexual component, despite their public statements to the contrary.

And this brings us back to the uncomfortable question: Could casual incest have been more common, even normal, in previous eras – especially during human prehistory?

The belief that incest was, and always has been, a fringe phenomena are based on a set of circular sophistic assumptions that have little basis in reality. And just to be clear, I am not trying to suggest that incest was ever the major sexual outlet for humans. Yet there is reason to believe that it was far more common than we want to or, perhaps more importantly, would like to believe.

The main scholastic argument against incest is based on the premise that it is dysgenic and that humans have a “natural” aversion to such encounters. But is that assumption supported by facts? Let us go after the dysgenic angle first. How many people obsessively filter the people they want to have sex, and perhaps children, with based on the “dysgenic-ness” of the outcome. While I am sure that aspy retards, such as those who frequent HBD sites, might care about dysgenics- people who are actually having sex are more concerned with factors such as the ease of getting laid, attractiveness, status and sometimes money.

Low barriers for partner selectivity are especially prevalent in casual sexual relationships, as opposed to those that are have socio-legal approval. Furthermore there is a large body of evidence which suggests that, historically, bestiality was not uncommon among those who worked around farm animals. To put it another way, people will have sex with far uglier and weirder people (and animals) than they will ever willingly admit.

But what about the supposed “natural” human aversion to incest? Aren’t we supposed to have some sort of deterministic aversion towards having sex with people we are closely related to? Well.. the real-life definitions of definition of “close” are rather vague and culturally determined. Consider the case of cousin marriages, which still account for around 10% of all marriages in the world yet are illegal in some parts of the USA.

For most of time anatomically modern humans have existed as a species, we have lived in tightly knit groups containing anywhere between 100 and 1000 individuals. Human groups are also quite distinct from those of most other mammalian groups in that are multi-generational and fairly gender balanced (at least over the medium term). Then there are logistical issues related to finding sexual partners outside your group. While most people born in the last few decades cannot imagine a would where people don’t live and find sexual partners in large and cosmopolitan cities, that was not always the case. Throughout human pre-history and history, most people never went further than 50 km from their birthplace. Given those conditions it is quite possible that people were more inbred than we would want to believe.

But there is more..

Over many years of searching through online porn (text, art, photos, videos) I came to an interesting realization. Certain sexual preferences and practices are far more popular than one could otherwise assume from looking at “popular” culture. For example- sexualized spanking and mild-to-moderate BDSM are far more popular than most people realize. Similarly other supposedly fringe practices like annalingus and female-to-male strapon sex are far more common in online porn than you would expect from immersing yourself in “popular” culture. So what is happening? Is depiction of these preferences and practices just another way to sell more porn? Or are they reflections of what people really want? In my opinion, it is mostly the later since it is really hard to keep on pumping out material without regard to audience engagement.

And this brings me to another observation about online porn. Incest themed online porn is just too widespread to cater to a small fringe audience. This is especially obvious in the era of online streaming porn, where incest-themed video clips keep popping up far more frequently than expected. Some of you might say that incest-themed porn is just a new way to push MILF or old-young porn. Well.. perhaps, but why push something in a way that makes it less valuable to a more conventional audience? Here is an analogous example- Would you repackage an expensive cut of meat as a supposedly less desirable cut unless there was a market for it.

What do you think? Comments?

Why GamerGaters Are Prevailing Over SJWs, Feminists and Journalists

October 27, 2014 3 comments

Mulling over GamerGate and its coverage by media for the last few days has provided me some interesting insights into the issue and how things might look in the near future (weeks to months). Some of my insights came from a dispassionate look at the responses of most “main-stream” journalists to GamerGate. A few came from studying changes in the tone of their articles and stated goals over time. Others came from my insights on the dynamics of this confrontation.

The short version of my conclusions is as follows: GamerGaters are prevailing over SJWs, feminists and journalists- and will continue to do so in the near future (weeks to months). I also believe that this trend will probably continue in the medium term (few years). FYI- I do not make predictions about events more than ten years in the future.

Here is the longer version of my insights.

1. The tone of “mainstream” journalists has shifted over the previous 2-3 weeks.

Their almost unanimous belief in an inevitable, decisive and spectacular triumph over the crushed ego of GamerGaters has increasingly been replaced by articles like this: Nobody Wins the GamerGate Civil War, Why can’t both sides bury hatchet over ethics in video games row?, Video game industry calls for an end to polarising ‘Gamergate’ controversy and The Disheartening GamerGate Campaign. It seems that some of those who wrote articles predicting the death and growing irrelevance of “gamers”, “nerds” and “neckbeards” are changing their tone. But why? Well.. a few were probably never enthusiastic about the whole thing in the first place. Some have been demoralized by the lack of an early decisive victory and are now re-evaluating their previous positions. Others are trying to buy time to regroup for a counter-offensive. Then there are those who can now see that this is turning into an insurgency.

2. GamerGate now displays all the main characteristics of an insurgency.

The last decade has seen the USA lose two wars in the middle-east. While some of you might not consider the outcome of military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan to be defeats or failures for the USA, the facts say otherwise. Simply put, the USA has failed to de-Talibanize Afghanistan after a decade of military presence in that country. They have also not been able to suppress Sunni Arab militarism in Iraq after almost a decade of being in that country. Why did they fail? Did they not spend enough money, buy enough fancy weapons or put enough boots on the ground? In my opinion, it comes down to a simple fact about warfare in the post-industrial era.

Conventional centralized armies cannot defeat determined insurgencies, especially if the later lacks a centralized command and control structure.

Let us compare the outcomes of WW2 with the decade-long dabbling in the middle-east. Ever wonder why the occupation of Germany and Japan after their defeat in WW2 was so orderly? Well.. it comes down to the fact that both nations had highly centralized command and control structures based on a national identity. People kept on fighting only as long as that structure did not surrender. Once that occurred, the occupiers faced no real resistance from the population. In contrast to that, both Iraq and Afghanistan are agglomerations of clans and tribes that form temporary alliances to fight external aggressors. In such situations, there is no central authority and command structure to declare defeat or victory.Furthermore, there is no hard and fast difference between allies and enemies in such societies.

The GamerGate crowd is similar to these insurgents in that there have no centralized command and control setup. Alliances between various groups in the coalition are temporary and ever-changing. Consequently the SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd will never be able to rest in peace even if they declare victory. Even worse, such declarations will invite more attacks, sabotage and trolling. The SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd in contrast are part of a fairly centralized hierarchical setup with only a few important power centers.

3. The GamerGaters have far less to lose than their adversaries.

The SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd delights in portraying the GamerGate crowd as basement-dwelling neckbeards without well-paying careers. While that is an exaggeration, it does contain a core of truth. A lot of GamerGaters are intelligent but somewhat socially awkward and lonely guys in jobs that don’t pay well. In contrast to that, their equivalents from a previous era had far better economic and sexual opportunities. While this inter-generational change in fortunes might not seem like a big deal, it does actually has a major influence on the nature and longevity of GamerGate.

Consequently, the men participating in GamerGate today don’t have much to lose. Compare this to their equivalents from previous eras who often went along with social “consensus” because they had stable and well-paying jobs, wives, children and mortgages. People who believe they have something worthwhile to lose act far more conservatively than those who know that they don’t have much to begin with. Computer games are far more important to guys with poorly paid and unstable jobs than people who fancy themselves as petite bourgeoisie. The SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd, on the other hand, are full of aspirational and actual petite bourgeoisie. They simply cannot afford to take the same risks as GamerGaters.

It also does not help that the SJW-Feminist-Journalist crowd are not especially conversant with the technology and other factors/issues underlying computer gaming. As many of you might have noticed by now, they cover their rudimentary understanding of technology with buzzwords and appeals to their “authority” or gender.

What do you think? Comments?

Understanding the Socio-Economic Processes that Lead to GamerGate

October 24, 2014 9 comments

A few days ago, I considered writing two posts on the ongoing GamerGate controversy- or should we say manufactured controversy. Just so that you know, this post contains a lot of stuff that will upset established or wannabe SJWs.

It all started about two months ago (Aug 2014) as the fallout of some infidelity-related relationship drama between a manipulative fat white “woman” and her rather unremarkable boyfriend. While this dramatic bullshit might have remained localized in a previous less-connected age, the widespread availability and use of the web (especially social media) resulted in that toxic spat spilling over into, and contaminating, the rest of the world. FYI, I have no real interest in exploring the ethical issues stemming from the trade of sexual favors for favorable media exposure. As I like to say- to each their own.

This post is about why computer gaming has suddenly became so culturally relevant.

As you will see, this new-found cultural relevance of computer gaming is almost exclusively about corporations trying to sell people more crap. But why is this happening now? Why was computer gaming not a big cultural issue twenty or even ten years ago? What has changed? And why?

Well.. there are many reasons.

Advances in hardware design was the first necessary, but not sufficient, condition that made all this bullshit possible. Prior to the era of Microsoft Xbox-360s, Sony PS3s, Ninentdo Wiis, smartphones and tablets- most dedicated computer gaming occurred on Desktop PCs and high-end Laptops. To put it another way, the core customer base of computer games was fairly dedicated and almost exclusively male. Sure.. there were gaming consoles like N64s, Dreamcasts, PS1s, PS2s and Xboxs- but they too were mostly a male domain. Furthermore, computer gaming was largely (and perhaps rightly) seen as the natural habitat of socially-awkward and often poor males without female company. Companies that produced computer games in those days were often small or medium-sized and produced whatever appealed to their core audience.

This started changing in the mid-2000s, but especially after the introduction of reasonably good gaming consoles that could produce pretty pictures and more life-like scenery. The introduction of these consoles also came at a time when easy online gaming became feasible. Consequently, it began to attract people who would have otherwise not started playing them. Smartphones and tablets accelerated this trend further so that everybody and their grandparents started playing Angry Birds, Farmville and CandyCrush. Corporations saw this as an opportunity to sell more crap and changed their business model accordingly. The stagnation of growth in more established form of entertainment such as network TV, movies and sporting events also made corporations see gaming as the new frontier for growth.

To summarize my first point, computer gaming became more important because of stagnation and decline in profit from other forms of entertainment. It is therefore no surprise that events such as Comic Con now receive so much corporate backing and positive advertising. This corporate interest in profit-making is also behind an explosive increase in the number of “gaming-related” journalists or as I like to call them – paid shills.

While the previous three paragraphs explain the technological (and capitalism-linked) reasons behind gaming becoming “culturally” relevant, it is not capable of explaining how a toxic spat between a manipulative fat white woman and her unremarkable boyfriend has morphed into a another “culture” war.

To understand what drives the invective of SJWs and their supposedly “liberal” journalistic allies, you have to look at cultural factors- especially what they intend to gain. So what do they intend to gain anyway? What can they possibly gain from antagonizing hardcore gamers- who are almost exclusively male? Don’t they understand, or care, about the long-term effects of antagonizing the most important and reliable customer base for that industry.

The short answer is- they don’t care about the effects of their actions on the computer gaming industry because they are not really part of that industry. The somewhat longer answer does something like this.. All those SJWs and their journalistic “friends” writing ever more toxic rants about the core audience of computer gaming are in it for themselves. It is about attempts to gain power by screwing over other people under the pretense of helping “society”.

Let us first focus on what is driving the journalists, who are perhaps the less repulsive of the two groups- if not by much. Have you ever wondered what all these people would have been doing in the pre-internet age? The simple answer is that they would have been trying to advance their careers by shilling and writing hit-pieces for print media. Journalists, with a few exceptions, have always been paid sophists, shills and character-assassination specialists for their rich masters. Think of them as whores, though that comparison is kinda demeaning to real whores. My point is that most journalists, but especially those who are trying to climb up, will shill and whore for anything that has a chance of improving their career prospects.

But why are they focusing so much on GamerGate? Why are they not paying a similar level of attention to far bigger issues like systemic racism in the american judicial system, narco-wars in Mexico or the endemic corruption and patient abuse in the american health system?

Apologists might say that some journalists do cover those issues- and that is true. But media coverage and critique of those problems bears no proportion to their impact on people. Moreover, journalists who cover the big and difficult issues have always been in the minority. But why is that so? Why do most people who pretend that their profession is devoted to speaking truth to power shy away from it whenever they have an opportunity to do so? Well.. it comes down to money and the fear of reprisals.

Systemic racism against non-whites in the USA is, and has always been, state policy. Critiquing that beyond a certain extent is not good for your journalistic career. Nor is it unique to that issues as most journalists were willing shills for the case to invade Iraq under false pretenses in 2003. Similarly most american journalists have been extremely unsupportive of people like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, inspite of the importance of their revelations. Similarly people who do actual field-based reporting on the government-abetted narco war in Mexico run the risk of losing their heads- literally. Therefore the vast majority of journalist will never focus on the truly important issues of that era.

So how do these shills maintain their public credibility- or whatever is left of it?

While the general credibility of journalists has been on a downward slope for many decades, they still attempt to make occasional attempts to maintain their credibility. But as we talked about just now, they cannot do so by antagonizing people who pay them or are likely to kill them. Most investigative journalism is therefore about issues, groups or people they can antagonize without fear of reprisal. That is why journalist spend so much time on subjects that can let them demonize or at least look down upon people. These include single mothers, drug addicts, black men, small time con artists and medium-sized scams.

Journalist who write about games are no different. They, and their colleagues at “social-issue” driven publications, have no real expertise or empathy for the subjects and issues they write about. I could have compared them to pimps, but that would be insulting to pimps. In a way, they are part of a trend sweeping american society in which the best pretenders (such as CEOs) make the most money and get the most power. The massive user response to recent and continuing biased journalism in computer gaming therefore represents an affront to their self-perceived power and importance. In a way, the response of journalists to GamerGate is not unlike the response of parasite to the host immune system.

However parasites, unlike journalists, never believe that the host exists because of them.

I will talk about my views on SJWs and their real “motivations” in an upcoming post.

What do you think? Comments?

The Literary Character of Ernst Blofeld was Based on Otto Skorzeny

October 20, 2014 3 comments

The character of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, as presented by Donald Pleasence in the movie ‘You Only Live Twice‘, has gone on to become one of the most iconic cinematic super-villains of the half century. Some may recognize him as the character who was parodied in the Austin Powers trilogy as Dr. Evil.

But have you ever wondered if the original Blofeld character was based on a real person?

Well.. as I found out over the years, he is- but not in the way you think. Moreover, the life-story of the guy that character was based on is even more interesting than the literary super-villain. However, I also realized something else.. The author of the James Bond series, Ian Fleming, took great care to obscure and hide the connection between his literary super-villain character and the guy he was almost certainly based on. As readers will see, Fleming had a very good reason to hide the true identity of the guy who served as the inspiration for one of his most iconic literary characters.

In the previous paragraph, I mentioned that it took me some time to figure out the identity of the person who inspired the Blofeld character. Here is why.. My first exposure to this character came from watching James Bond movies, especially as played by Donald Pleasence. To put it another way, I (like most of you) saw his character on screen before reading about it in a book. The best clues to to true identity of Blofeld are found in some of the first James Bond novels. Having said that, his first cinematic representation of Blofeld (and Dr. Evil) holds one important clue to his true identity.

Notice something common to both Ernst Blofeld and Dr. Evil?


Apart from the fact that both Blofeld and Dr. Evil are bald, they both have a peculiar scar on their face. But what would cause such a scar? Well, it turns out that such scars are the result of an old Germanic academic tradition known as Academic fencing. While researching a bit more about academic fencing, I came across a picture of Otto Skorzeny who apparently had one of the larger and more photogarphed version of such a scar. Some of you might wonder, as I did, if depicting the super-villain character with such a scar was simply a cinematic device. Well.. that is certainly a possibility. But why chose such an obscure, if dramatic looking, scar that had no role in his path to super-villainy? Here is my theory- The producers of ‘You Only Live Twice’ tried to further obscure an already obscured literary character because the real-life inspiration for him was still alive when that movie was produced and released.

So why do I believe that the literary character of Ernst Stavro Blofeld was principally inspired by the career and exploits of Otto Skorzeny? Let me start with the original physical description of Ernst Blofeld in Ian Fleming’s older novels as summarized on Wikipedia.

Blofeld is described physically as a massive man, weighing roughly 20 stone (280 lb; 130 kg), has black crew-cut hair, black eyes (similar to those of Benito Mussolini), heavy eyelashes, a thin mouth and long pointed hands and feet. He has violet-scented breath from chewing flavoured cachous (breath mints). A meticulous planner of formidable intellect, he seems to be without conscience but not necessarily insane, and is motivated solely by financial gain.

Readers will immediately notice that this physical description is nothing like the one depicted in any James Bond movie. This is our first clue that the character of Blofeld was originally based on someone who looked very different from his cinematic version. Another set of clues are found in biographical facts about the literary version of this character.

According to the novel, Blofeld was born on 28 May 1908 (which is also Fleming’s birthday) in the city of Gdingen, then part of Imperial Germany (now part of Poland and known under the name Gdynia); his father was Polish and his mother was Greek, hence the well-known Greek name Stavro. As a young man, Blofeld was well-versed in the social science disciplines, but also in the natural science and technology disciplines. He first graduated from the University of Warsaw with a degree in Political History and Economics, and then from the Warsaw University of Technology with a degree in Engineering and “Radionics”.


Correctly foreseeing the coming of World War II, Blofeld made copies of top-secret wires and sold them for cash to Nazi Germany. Before the German invasion of Poland in 1939, he destroyed all records of his existence then moved first to Sweden, then to Turkey, where he worked for Turkish Radio and began to set up his own private intelligence organisation. During the war, he sold information to both sides. After the defeat of Erwin Rommel, he decided to back the Allied war effort, and was awarded numerous medals by the Allied powers after the war’s end. Blofeld then temporarily moved to South America before founding SPECTRE.

Taken as a whole, these autobiographical facts about Blofeld are not particularly helpful in uncovering the identity of his real-life inspiration. They do, however, contain three important clues. Firstly, he was born in 1908 in a city that is now in Poland. Secondly, he was an engineer by training. Thirdly, he was a very pragmatic person who switched loyalties as needed. Lastly, he moved to South America after WW2 to found SPECTRE.

So, the real-life inspiration for Blofeld was a dark-haired, tall and muscular culturally Germanic guy. He was born in 1908- either in Poland or his family had Polish roots. He then went on to study engineering and worked for the Nazis during WW2. After the war, he disavowed his previous loyalties and went into the international private “security” business as the head of a private organisation initially based in South America.

Now have a look at this guy..


Let us now look at the biographical details of Otto Skorzeny as gleaned from two sources- Wikipedia and this one.

Otto Skorzeny was born June 12, 1908, in Vienna, Austria into a middle class Austrian family with Polish roots. Skorzeny spoke fluent German and French and was educated locally before attending university. While there, he developed skills in fencing. Taking part in numerous bouts, he received a long scar on the left side of his face. This along with his height (6’4″), was one of Skorzeny’s distinguishing features.In 1931 Skorzeny joined the Austrian Nazi Party and soon became a member of the Nazi SA. A charismatic figure, Skorzeny played a minor role in the Anschluss on 12 March 1938, when he saved the Austrian President Wilhelm Miklas from being shot by Austrian Nazis. A civil engineer by trade, Skorzeny came to minor prominence when he saved Austrian President Wilhelm Miklas from being shot during the Anschluss in 1938. This action caught the eye of Austrian SS chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner. With the beginning of World War II in September 1939, Skorzeny attempted to join the Luftwaffe but instead was assigned as an officer-cadet in the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (Hitler’s bodyguard regiment). Serving as a technical officer with the rank of second lieutenant, Skorzeny put his engineering training to use.

In 1940, as an SS Untersturmführer (second lieutenant), he impressed his superiors by designing ramps to load tanks on ships. He then fought in the Netherlands, France and the Balkans, where he achieved distinction by forcing a large Yugoslav force to surrender, following which he was promoted to Obersturmführer (first lieutenant) in the Waffen-SS. Skorzeny went to war in the USSR with the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich and subsequently fought in several battles on the Eastern Front. In October 1941, he was in charge of a “technical section” of the German forces during the Battle of Moscow. Skorzeny was wounded by shrapnel from Katyusha rockets in December 1942. Though injured, he refused treatment and continued fighting until the effects of his wounds forced his evacuation. Taken to Vienna to recover, he received the Iron Cross.

Given a staff role with the Waffen-SS in Berlin, Skorzeny began extensive reading and research into commando tactics and warfare. Enthusiastic about this alternative approach to warfare he began advocating it within the SS. Based on his work, Skorzeny believed that new, unconventional units should be formed to conduct attacks deep behind enemy lines. In April 1943, his work bore fruit as he was selected by Kaltenbrunner, now the head of the RSHA (SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt – Reich Main Security Office) to develop a training course for operatives that included paramilitary tactics, sabotage, and spying. Promoted to captain, Skorzeny quickly received command of Sonderverband z.b.V. Friedenthal. A special operations unit, it was redesignated 502nd SS Jäger Battalion Mitte that June. Relentlessly training his men, Skorzeny’s unit conducted their first mission, Operation Francois, that summer. Dropping into Iran, a group from the 502nd was tasked with contacting dissident tribes in the region and encouraging them to attack Allied supply lines. A list of the other pre-1946 operations he was involved in can be found in this link. FYI- His leadership of the successful commando raid that freed Mussolini in 1944 is widely seen as the moment when he first attracted significant international attention.

But it was his post-WW2 exploits that made him a legend.

After Germany surrendered in 1945, he like many other high-ranking German Army officials was imprisoned and tried at Dachau for war crimes. However a combination of circumstances and the reticence of many potential allied witnesses to testify for fear of divulging their own war crimes resulted in his acquittal for those charges in 1947. Skorzeny was then detained in an internment camp at Darmstadt awaiting the decision of a denazification court.On 27 July 1948 he escaped from the camp with the help of three former SS officers dressed in US Military Police uniforms who entered the camp and claimed that they had been ordered to take Skorzeny to Nuremberg for a legal hearing. Skorzeny afterwards maintained that the US authorities had aided his escape, and had supplied the uniforms. Skorzeny hid out at a farm in Bavaria which had been rented by Countess Ilse Lüthje, the niece of Hjalmar Schacht (Hitler’s former finance minister), for around 18 months, during which time he was in contact with Reinhard Gehlen, and together with Hartmann Lauterbacher (former deputy head of the Hitler Youth) recruited for the Gehlen Organization.

Skorzeny was photographed at a café on the Champs Elysées in Paris on 13 February 1950. The photo appeared in the French press the next day, causing him to retreat to Salzburg, where he met up with German veterans and also filed for divorce so that he could marry Ilse Lüthje. Shortly afterwards, with the help of a Nansen passport issued by the Spanish government, he moved to Madrid, where he set up a small engineering business which helped serve as a front for his operations with the ODESSA network as he had become the Spanish coordinator. On April 1950 the publication of Skorzeny’s memoirs by the French newspaper Le Figaro caused 1500 communists to riot outside the journal’s headquarters. There is a strong possibility that he also worked for as a high-ranking security “adviser” for Juan Peron in the early 1950s, and is rumored to have had an affair with Evita Peron- yes, that Evita!

And it gets even better..

In 1952, when the country had been taken over by General Mohammed Naguib, Skorzeny was sent to Egypt the following year by former General Reinhard Gehlen (who was now working for the CIA) to act as Naguib’s military advisor. Skorzeny recruited a staff made up of former SS officers to train the Egyptian army. Among these officers were SS General Wilhelm Farmbacher, Panzer General Oskar Munzel, Leopold Gleim, head of the Gestapo Department for Jewish Affairs in Poland, and Joachim Daemling, former chief of the Gestapo in Düsseldorf. In addition to training the army, Skorzeny also trained Arab volunteers in commando tactics for possible use against British troops stationed in the Suez Canal zone. Several Palestinian refugees also received commando training, and Skorzeny planned their raids into Israel via the Gaza Strip in 1953-1954. One of these Palestinians was Yasser Arafat. He would eventually serve as an adviser to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

But wait, there is more..

Skorzeny later provided intelligence to Mossad on ex-Nazi scientists working for the Egyptian government. Skorzeny agreed to cooperate with Israel on condition that Simon Wiesenthal erase his name from the list of wanted Nazi war criminals and act to have an arrest warrant against him cancelled. Though Wiesenthal rejected this request, Skorzeny decided in the end to cooperate with Mossad anyway. Yes.. you read that right- he even worked for Mossad. Take a second to reflect on the irony of a guy who was in the inner circle of the Third Reich working for Mossad.

And then there is his central role in the formation of the Paladin Group which was pretty much a real life-version of the fictional SPECTRE.

The Paladin Group was created in 1970 in the Albufereta neighborhood of Alicante, Spain, by former SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny and former US Colonel James Sanders. A former special operations officer, Skorzeny had become a member of the ODESSA network after the war, helping to smuggle Nazi war criminals out of Allied Europe to Spain, South America and other friendly destinations to avoid prosecution for war crimes. Skorzeny himself resided after the war in Spain, protected by Franco. Skorzeny envisioned the Paladin Group as “an international directorship of strategic assault personnel [that would] straddle the watershed between paramilitary operations carried out by troops in uniforms and the political warfare which is conducted by civilian agents”. In addition to recruiting many former SS members, the Group also recruited from the ranks of various right-wing and nationalist organizations, including the French Nationalist OAS, the SAC, and the ‘Légion étrangère’. The hands-on manager of the Group was Dr. Gerhard Hartmut von Schubert, formerly of Joseph Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry, who had trained security personnel in Argentina and Egypt after the war. Under his guidance, Paladin provided support to the PFLP – EO led by Wadie Haddad.

The Group’s other clients included the South African Bureau of State Security and Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi. They also worked for the Greek military junta of 1967–1974 and the Spanish Dirección General de Seguridad, who recruited some Paladin operatives to wage clandestine war against Basque separatists. The Group is also reputed to have provided personnel for José López Rega’s notorious Argentine Anti-Communist Alliance death squad. The Paladin Group was also allegedly allied with a number of other right-wing governments, including Salazar’s Portugal, and some of the Italian neo-fascists involved in the strategy of tension attacks of the 1970s and 80s. The Paladin Group also held offices in Zurich, Switzerland. The Soviet news agency TASS alleged that Paladin was involved in training US Green Berets for Vietnam missions during the 1960s, but this is considered unlikely, since Skorzeny’s methods were considered somewhat antiquated, and he resented the USA for its role in destroying Nazi Germany.

This is why I believe that the literary character of Ernst Blofeld was based on Otto Skorzeny.

So why did Ian Fleming and the producers of the James Bond movie franchise took pains to obscure the true inspiration for that character? Well.. consider the timeline. Skorzeny died in 1975 and many of the most memorable James Bond movies came out in the 1960s. Would you really want to get on the bad side of a guy like Skorzeny?

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Musings

Most People Around You Don’t Deserve Sympathy or Compassion: 1

October 5, 2014 82 comments

Questions surrounding the nature of impersonal society and “civilization” (such as link 1, link 2) have a habit of popping up in my posts. While they can sometimes appear repetitious, it is hard to ignore them since they are also highly relevant to many facets of your day-to-day existence. One related topic, which I have also touched upon in previous posts (such as link 3, link 4), concerns the effect of changing circumstances and realities on the individual-group dynamic.

Do you really have an obligation or duty towards any human group that is incapable of, or unwilling to, fulfill its end of the deal- explicit and implicit?

As I have said before, humans are not mindless eusocial creatures like ants or bees. Formation and cohesion of human groups is based on reciprocity (or a promise thereof) between each individual in it and the rest of that group. To put it another way, real cooperation with your group only makes sense if you have a very high chance of receiving what was promised to you (explicitly and implicitly) in the first place. One of the many reasons that I rightly consider CONservatives to be less than subhuman is their repeated parroting of the “society does not owe you anything” meme. Now I know exactly what they are trying to, but don’t have the brains or balls, to say- but that is best discussed in another post. This one will focus on something different and explain my insight through a series of thought experiments.

The first one occurred to me, many years ago, at a time when I had just started using escorts. The circumstances surrounding what I am going to talk about have been mentioned in previous posts (link 5, link 6). It centers around an interesting paradox – I could get high quality paid sex (including frequent freebies) from attractive and reasonably priced escorts while I was being simultaneously rejected by far more plain, dumpy and mediocre women. So what was going on? Well.. in my opinion, it was largely about the belief of those mediocre women in their intrinsic racial superiority, even if there was no evidence to support it. Then again, most humans have an almost infinite capacity for self delusion- something that I will write more about in another post. But it does raise an even more important, if almost never asked, question that is best framed as a thought experiment.

What if all those women, and guys like them, disappeared from the face of the earth?

While I have talked about similar in a previous post, this one tackles a different question. Does the continued existence of people you do not particularly care about matter to you? Also, under what condition or circumstances would that answer change- either way? If you think through my questions systematically and rationally, you will arrive to a somewhat disquieting answer.

In an impersonal and atomized society, the existence of other people matters only so far as it translates into a high probability of serving your own needs.

The demise of anyone whose existence or actions do not serve your needs or desires is, at best, inconsequential. The reader might wonder if the demise of people who did something important for you, but not in a very obvious manner, would be detrimental. The short answer to that question is- perhaps, but not really. Let me explain what I am talking about through one somewhat tasteless thought experiment.

Imagine a situation in which 80-90% or even 100% of white physicians and surgeons in the USA died within a week. Would it matter? Well.. it would certainly matter in the very short term- perhaps a few weeks or months at most. However, their positions would almost certainly be filled through the mass importation of equally competent non-white physicians. Moreover, people who work under physicians perform most of the actual work in healthcare. So the somewhat longer answer is as follows: short-term disruptions seldom translate into long-term disruptions. The only time such large-scale disruptions translate into long-term effects is when those who became extinct had some unique ability that their successors are incapable of developing. In the case of physicians or surgeons, that is simply not the case. A non-white person with similar education, hours of experience and access to technology will do just as good a job as a white person, and the same is true of every job, profession and vocation. And this brings us to another disquieting idea.

People whose utility to others is defined by their jobs are completely replaceable and fungible.

The same is also true of employers- more specifically the people you work under. In an era where people do not have stable jobs, the demise of your immediate superior in the corporate hierarchy is largely irrelevant as most people in that position have no interest in helping you as a person. You could even replace them with a similar looking person and nobody would notice or care. This is especially true in countries such as the USA where all corporations are slow death-marches, as far as most of their employees are concerned. One could make the same case for other institutions, from universities and research institutes to schools and sports leagues. Do you really think that the sudden demise of all the “top” scientists from “prestigious” universities and institutes would somehow set our knowledge of science or progress back? Heck, if anything it might have the opposite effect by removing a lot of politically connected and uncreative courtier-types.?

In an atomized society there are no rational reasons to feel any sympathy or compassion for people who just happen to exist around you.

Now, you might say- this is cold, heartless and inhuman. Well.. perhaps, but it is rational. More importantly, is your experience any different? How many people you have worked with can you trust to not screw you over? What about any person or corporation that has ever employed you? Or what about the women you might have married? Can you really trust them to not screw you over for ego or minor financial gains? What about the government that claims to protect you from “all those bad people” if you just agree to go deeper into bonded servitude?

Perhaps you might want to reevaluate your interactions with people and institutions around you. There is no reason to be loyal, kind or even fair to people and institutions who abuse your trust in every possible way and at every possible turn.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 9

September 24, 2014 6 comments

Following up from my previous post in this series, I made the following statement:

A mentally ill murderer who believes that he is god is far more honest and possess significantly larger balls than the pathetic piece of shit who has to hide in the shadow of a socially acceptable belief system and defend his actions through misdirection and sophistry.

Scamming others and oneself through outright lies, misdirections and sophistry is one of the main foundations of all traditional religious and secular belief systems. But how does anything this fucked up become popular in the first place. How do such scam-ridden belief systems gain any amount of social legitimacy? Well, it is easy..

All traditional and secular religions portray themselves as an answer to a problem, even if that problem is non-existent.

A few contemporary examples of emerging ideologies and movements will help you understand what I am talking about. They will also show you what motivates the early adopters and evangelists of any religions or secular ideology.

Let us start with PETA aka People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. While it was initially started to protest some very egregious examples of medical experimentation and abuse of animals, it did not stay that way. As soon as the group got its first wave of new followers, it diversified into other areas such as opposition to factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Personally, I do support the core ideas behind organisations like PETA and have, on numerous occasions, clearly stated my opposition to cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. But if you have spent enough time following their actions, it is clear that the organization is now largely driven by the need for ever-increasing amounts of publicity, money and power.

Let me illustrate that point with a few examples of their actions and behavior within the last decade. You might have, at some point in the last few years, come across a news item about how PETA wants everyone to become vegan or something like that. My question is- What does not eating meat have to do with the prevention of cruelty to animals? Human beings are an omnivorous species, and while we can survive close to either end of the carnivore-vegetarian gradient- it is rather obvious that our physiology works best when we are somewhere in the middle of that gradient. So the real question is- How do you raise and kill animals for meat in a way that minimizes suffering, preferably to levels experienced by the same species in the wild.

As you might have realized, getting people to agree on not abusing animals raised for meat is relatively easy and straightforward. Nor is it especially costly or technology intensive to do so. You just have to support and perhaps legislate for moderate density animal farming as opposed to the high density crap that is supported by large corporations today. So why is PETA more famous for throwing fake blood on fur coats, constantly promoting veganism or killing animals in their pet shelters? And yes, they have rational-sounding reasons for all of those actions. But is it really about preventing cruelty to animals? Could there be a better explanation for the large gap between what they could feasibly achieve and what they actually devote their energies to?

PETA is now a nascent religion and, like all other older religions, is now far more interested in screwing up the lives of other people than trying to solve the problem it was created to solve in the first place.

Their constant obsession with fur coats, promoting veganism and defense of kill-only shelters is about trying to force other people to live as they want others to live. In that respect they are no different from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any flavor of Capitalism or Communism. It is therefore no surprise that their more famous supporters sound more like evangelists on a moral crusade than rational people trying to find a better solution. Now let us turn our attention to another nascent religion aka the ‘religion of catastrophic man-made global climate change’ which used to known as the ‘religion of catastrophic man-made global warming’.

While I have written a couple of posts, including this one, about my thoughts on that subject- they tackled the more technical issues involved in modeling complex interactive systems and understanding the mechanism behind previous instances of dramatic climate change. But as many of you have come to realize, for some time, all of that talk about man-made climate change is not really about preventing climate change. It is really about maintaining power, specifically the primacy of a rapidly aging and sclerotic white west in the face of sustained global increases in the quality of life.

At their core, movements centered around “preventing climate-change” or any similar environmentalist bullshit are about trying to prevent non-white populations from enjoying a higher standard of living.

For a century or so (approximately 1850-1950) only the west (and predominantly white people) enjoyed a rapidly increasing standard of living. At that time, they believed that they alone were genetically capable of developing and using science and technology. But reality has a way to spoil delusions and the post 1950 era saw a diffusion and uptake of science and technology among non-white populations who were considered to be generically incapable of doing so. Now we live in a world where the level of scientific understanding and technological competence is rather similar throughout the world. Today most technology intensive manufacturing occurs in East Asia, a lot of chemical manufacturing and processing occurs in places like India and countries like Brazil make commercially viable airliners. Did I mention relatively inexpensive and successful interplanetary probes to Mars?

To put it another way, being white is just not what it used to be and the process is not reversible.

The support for movements to ‘reduce climate change’ should therefore be seen as a last-ditch effort to sabotage the development of non-white countries. And here is the real problem with that approach- it is not working! Countries like China, India and pretty much all other non-white countries can both see through this charade and have the means to tell the rapidly aging and pathetic predominantly white countries to fuck themselves.

So why do I call it the ‘religion of catastrophic man-made global climate change’ rather than a conspiracy to sabotage predominantly non-white countries. I am certainly not the first person to point out the religious nature of belief in man-made catastrophic global climate change. Michael Crichton said something very similar a few year ago. But his main focus on how it resembled the belief system of traditional and secular religions. He did not talk much about how the motivations of prophets, leaders and priests of this new religion are almost identical to their counterparts from more traditional faiths.

So let us talk about what motivates the prophets, leaders and priests of this new faith. Well.. like their counterparts from older faiths, they are driven by the need for power- specifically the power to impoverish, abuse and kill other people. As with all older religions, there is a massive gap between the preaching and actual behavior of these prophets, leaders and priests. Most live in great material luxury and gleefully indulge in all the “sins” they rant and warn others about. No rich white supporter of global warming is ever going to give up any of the fossil-fuel enabled utilities and capabilities they warn non-whites about, except perhaps for photo opportunities.

Another important characteristic of religions, also seen in global warming, is the presence of a significant number of useful idiots who will enthusiastically follow the teachings of their duplicitous leaders. We have all come across a few ‘true believers’ who firmly believe in and obsess about man-made climate change. So what motivates them? Once again, and as I have said before, it is about providing them a rational to abuse other people- even though most of them do not yet have that power. Religions, you see, are a lot like ponzi schemes in that every person who joins it does so to get up to the next level and abuse those below them.

In the next part of this post, I will try to focus on secular religions such as feminism (including the white-knight phenomena) and all those poor and stupid southern whites who enjoy being shat on by rich white people as long as they get to fuck over a few black people. And yes, those two religions are connected.

What do you think? Comments?

Guest Post: The Problem with the Left and its Identity Politics

September 12, 2014 5 comments

A guest post by “Leopold Lawrence”.

At the start of this century and into the following decade, it is hard to imagine, indeed, even to ponder the possibilities of the mass revolt. Our times seem so distant from those of fifty and forty years ago, that we can now scarcely imagine how revolts of such scale were even possible and capable of almost overthrowing the regimes of their times. The disillusionments and disappointments that followed these revolts, the most spectacular being the May ’68 Revolts that took place in Paris, has since brought much of the radical, revolutionary Left into disrepute, unable to even mount an incisive cultural critique of our times. It would not be much to say that the Left has since ‘exhausted’ itself, repeating the dead old memes of identity politics and proletarian revolutions that can no longer capture the imagination of the masses that they so rely on. Workers are fed up with socialist parties that have routinely betrayed them in the name of a “Third Way”, a left-apologetic for the excesses of a global capitalism, a type of parasitic system that has managed to reach everywhere into our most personal of lives, especially since the advent of globalization and the fall of the Iron Curtain.

If the goal of leftism is to build a more ‘humane’ capitalism, then it has forfeited any radical critique it could have possibly mounted against global capitalism itself. To ‘humanize’ capitalism is simply to lay a colorful shroud over what is essentially, at its core, a most oppressive and alienating system of production/consumption that our ‘benefactors’ have invented. To ‘humanize’ something, that is at the bottom, inhumane, is to give a characteristic to a thing which does not belong to it, since what capitalism remains is essentially an inhumane soul. The humanization of capitalism only serves to distort and mask the reality of what capitalism really is underneath: a wolf in sheep’s skin.

Furthermore, the Leftist advocacy of identity politics has only enslaved us to particular identities rather than liberating us from them. Rather than allowing us to remake our own identities, leftist identity politics calls for us being ‘aware’ of how we are defined by external circumstances only to pigeon-hole us into an identity of victimhood that we should all be breaking out of, to break out of our externally imposed conditions of existence. Leftists want us to realize our potential as women, workers, students, etc, without realizing that these are the social roles that our society has determined that we are, that this is what we “truly are”. Although workers, women, students, indigenous peoples we may all be, but we are all precisely more than these and cannot by any proper means be defined by them nor reduced to these identities. These identities always remain something external to us, and thus in every single way, ‘inessential’ to us.

This does not mean, however, that we should not take on these struggles, but it does require us to recognize that neither of these struggles is more ‘essential’ than the other, and that the other particular struggles that we may take on cannot be reduced to a more ‘essential’ one. That is, “liberating” ourselves as workers, students, women, etc, will only ever amount to a partial liberation of our particular identities as students, women, workers, but never to a full liberation from those identities, which should be the goal of any genuine movement towards self-emancipation. In short, the problem with such identities is that they define us always by what we do rather than by what we are (what we ‘are’, however, remains essentially indefinable). To be a worker, a student, even a woman, is to take on a social role, defined by us and for us by what we do.

Here, I am in much agreement with Wolfi Landstreicher’s critique of identity as a social role: “Social roles are ways in which individuals are defined by the whole system of relationships that is society in order to reproduce society. They make individuals useful to society by making them predictable, by defining their activities in terms of the needs of society. Social roles are work — in the broad sense of activity that reproduces the production/consumption cycle.” Social roles thus always remain externally determined, what we do for a living is something we take up, not because we enjoy them (we don’t, for the most part), but are ways that reinforce and reaffirm our ‘place’ in a society of production/consumption that has determined for us what we are best able to do (through the questionable notion of “competence”/”merit”), even when we are in complete disagreement with its judgment.

We are, after all, not essentially producers nor consumers, but something more than what society has determined us to be. Thus, we ‘free spirits’ are never really students, workers, women, etc, for these are the things we do, our social function in society but not what we are. What we really are though, is an ‘indefinable self’, an irreducible self, a self that is differentiated from all else. But our social roles are never ‘essential’ to us, for these are roles that we take up and discard once they are no longer useful. Hence, I am not always a student, nor a worker, but beyond such identities. To take these identities as essential then, is not just an instance of ‘false consciousness’ but of willful self-deception and alienation from ourselves as ourselves for we forget to relate to ourselves as the self that is always differentiated from its attributes that it happens to possess, that is, those external attributes that are extrinsic to itself and thus removable from the self, i.e. the contingent.

In taking up our social roles as our ‘essential’ identities, we become the replaceable cogs in the machine that, once worn out (as we eventually do, from “burn-out”), another cog, similar to us, will take our place. We are not then, unique nor differentiated in our social roles, but the same; a homogenized mass of bodies, quantifiable and measurable and always only useful as a ‘function’ in a scheme beyond ourselves. Thus, in this broad social scheme, I relate to another as a ‘colleague’, ‘boss’, ‘employer’, ‘bureaucrat’, etc, but never as freely determined individuals, never as ‘themselves ’. This remains closed to me and not simply because of matters of ‘professionalism’. For example, even people who relate to each other outside of work cannot break outside of their roles that they carry over from work: “Oh yeah, Bill today lost the paper-work and got demoted!” But the ‘other’ as ‘other’ is still distant, something inaccessible and certainly not in a direct manner. Thus, it is no surprise that we remain alienated from each other in such circumstances!

The Self Beyond Determination

So to take on one particular struggle to the detriment of another, is to miss the mark completely. Instead, we will have to choose our struggles carefully and towards those which sparks our most immediate interest. In other words, to limit ourselves to these contingent identities (that are not even, most of the time, of our own making) is to limit the possibilities of breaking beyond these externally imposed identities and to take on a self-identity that finds its nature as an “undetermined indeterminacy”. By an ‘undetermined indeterminacy’, we mean an identity that, due to its own initially undetermined nature, is open to its own constant remaking, an identity that both creates and recreates itself in a constant process of becoming something ‘other’ than itself while remaining itself indeterminably; a self that cannot be picked out.

At the same time, this identity is also “indeterminate” because it can never be fully defined as what it essentially is since there is always something about it that escapes full definition and thus, determination. It remains indeterminate at all times, since to state what it essentially is would be to define it and thus to ‘limit’ its possibilities of being something else/other; it would then be reducible to another attribute that it happens to have rather than being something more and above all of its attributes. As such, to state what the self essentially is would be to really say what it is not, since what it really is is always something else, something other than what we said it is. Thus the self always escapes full definition since no definition could possibly fit the self into a specific category of being since the self remains prior to all modes of being, indeed it is the grounds in which all modes of being is possible. After all, before you are a Man, an American, a Christian, etc, (and all other contingent personal attributes), before all of this, ‘ýou are you’ and remain you even if those other attributes are taken away from you.

To put it simply, this self-identity that is beyond all identities is neither essential (in the sense of it being ‘fixed’), nor externally determined by circumstances and other factors beyond our control (as in something given or handed down to us by others), but always remains self-determined, a self that creates and recreates itself. It is not a ‘fixed essence’ in that it remains constantly the same no matter what, but always redefines itself and thus escapes definition since to define it means to ‘fix’ it into a particular place/attribute that it happens to occupy or a character that it happens to possess, rather than allowing for its free development beyond all place and attribute. At most, our words can only point to it but can never grasp its full essence since its essence is essentially always changing, always becoming something ‘other’.

This indeterminacy allow this self-identity to escape not just all attempts to define it, but allows for its own contingent defining and redefining through its free self-development, as it makes and remakes itself in a constant process of becoming. Thus, I find many parallels here with Stirner’s “Unique One” which takes on all the characteristics of an undetermined indeterminacy: “This indeterminacy only seems to be achieved in the unique, because it is given as the specific unique being, because when it is grasped as a concept, i.e., as an expression, it appears as a completely empty and undetermined name, and thus refers to a content outside of or beyond the concept. If one fixes it as a concept— and the opponents do this — one must attempt to give it a definition and will thus inevitably come upon something different from what was meant.”

Further, as Stirner explains: “The unique, however, has no content; it is indeterminacy in itself; only through you does it acquire content and determination. There is no conceptual development of the unique, one cannot build a philosophical system with it as a “principle,” the way one can with being, with thought, with the I.” From this, all self-determination becomes possible from the undetermined indeterminacy of self-identity.

What do you think? Comments?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers