More than a few of my previous posts have centered on, or around, an odd but rarely asked, question.
“What is the point of accumulating money beyond the ability to spend it?”
Now, stupid sophists defending the status quo might say that its is impossible to determine what is enough. Curiously these sophists are seldom well off, let alone truly rich, making their defense of the status quo a bit odd. Perhaps they believe that their incessant barking on behalf of the rich might get them get a few more table crumbs or leftovers. But who knows..
Anyway, back to the question at hand. I have previously written that the reasons for accumulating money beyond the point of usability cannot be rational. But what if they are still logical. Confused? Let me explain. An action can be simultaneously logical and irrational, because logic is a mechanistic process in which the inputs don’t have to be factual or real.
For example, burning women accused of having sex with the devil requires that particular entity to exist in the first place and is therefore irrational. However it can be perfectly logical if you were one of those perpetually fearful and greedy semi-retards who believed in the existence of the devil, especially one interested in having sex with human females.
Coming back to our era, a closer look at much of what we think is ‘normal’ and ‘right’ just does hold up to rational scrutiny. Many of my previous posts are about the sheer irrationality underlying a wide variety of systems- from the basic structure of “civilized” society, the bizarre illusion of money, the worthlessness of supposedly important inter-personal relationships to the futility of loyalty to institutions that demand it. To put it another way- most conventional expectations, norms, rules and behaviors are not rational. But what if they are still logical? and more importantly- what does that say about the real nature of the human mind?
One of the main feature of conventional models for the human mind, be they religious, secular or “scientific”, is the assumption that human beings are intrinsically good, rational, caring or at least capable of all those things. Even religious models that portray human as sinful and fallen, or whatever their secular equivalent are, allow for the possibility of being saved, lifted or “enlightened”.
But what if that is not the case? Could it be the vast majority of humans, including the supposedly smart ones, are fundamentally incapable of being rational.
This question is best answered by looking at the entirety of available evidence (aka historical evidence from multiple sources) factoring in the inevitable underlying contexts and biases. Throughout most of the last 5,000 odd years (aka the age of civilization) the general standard of human living was very low and even the very rich were an infection, poisoning or puncture wound away from death. To make things easy and clear, let us temporarily ignore the actions and behavior of insecure and desperate people under constant stress or duress.
We will therefore, for the time being, willingly ignore most of human history- even though it strongly suggests humans are highly irrational.
Let us focus on societies where a combination of resources and technology make it possible to deliver a very high quality of life to all their members. In case you are wondering, I am talking about the situation in developed countries after WW2- especially after the early 1960s. Studying such societies allows us to eliminate the role of scarcity on human behavior or the ability to reason.
Does the functioning of these societies suggest that humans are capable of rational behavior when not under any real resource constraints?
The answer to this question is complicated. From the end of WW2 to the late 1970s, the socioeconomic changes in these countries suggested that human beings might be capable of rationality- at least under certain conditions. Those times were characterized by very significant technological progress and considerable improvement in the living standards of the median person in those societies. This era was also characterized by fairly low income inequality and a realistic chance to improve ones position in society. It was as if after millennia of screwing around without anything to show for it, human societies had finally found the ability and institutional structures to provide a safe, stable and reasonably good existence for almost all of its members.
But there have been many changes since the late-1970s and almost all of them have taken those developed societies increasingly further away their early post-WW2 vision. But why? It is very clear that we do not lack the technology, resources, productivity or ability to extend the general socioeconomic improvements that occurred within the first three decades after WW2. But every single developed society has abandoned the path of improving the lives of its median, let alone its poorer, members.
How can we account for the rise of neo-liberalistive/neo-conservative (neo-feudal) ideologies throughout developed countries since the early 1980s?
There are those who see this is the result of clever propaganda, institutional capture or mass media-driven brainwashing. While this line of thought might sound appealing to those who see average humans as fundamentally good and therefore gullible victims, there are reasons to believe that it is not the case. You might have noticed that a lot of the ideas recycled by neo-conservatives or neo-liberals, from “personal responsibility” to “work ethic”, are actually old lies and fairy tales.
So what makes people want to believe in obvious lies such as “work ethic”, “meritocracy”, “invisible hand of market”, “creative destruction” and “personal discipline” while discarding other equally old and popular lies about the role of divine entities in human affairs.
Are people really that stupid, unobservant and innumerate? Then there is the troubling question of why the middle class is so eager to believe in the lies, scams and bait-and switches which trick, hurt and abuse them the most. Surely, they are not that retarded or unobservant. I also don’t believe that this behavior is due to learned helplessness. A rational person who understood his lack of control over events would not strive for the benefit of those who were abusing him.
Could it be that most people believe in or play along with norms, rules and paradigms that are against their rational interests because it provides surreptitious satisfaction of much deeper urges in their minds?
In a couple of my previous posts (Link 1 and Link 2) I had suggested that hoarding money beyond ones ability to spend it was irrational as it offered no real objective benefits to the hoarder. But what if hoarding money was about depriving others of resources, security and happiness rather than improving your own existence. Furthermore, what if the behavior of the rich is merely an exaggeration of how most humans relate to each other.
Have you considered the possibility that the primary intention behind almost all “normal” human interpersonal interaction is to somehow con, swindle, abuse, hurt, maim or kill the other party?
In upcoming parts of this series, of which there will be many, I shall demonstrate how my model of the human mind is a far better fit for available evidence on human behavior in a variety of situations.
What do you think? Comments?
A recently released music video parodying the mindless american obsession with professional team sports.
Most regular readers of this blog are aware that I have an extremely low opinion of human beings in general. But don’t mistake my general disdain of humans as misanthropy, because it is not.
Misanthropy is the end result of an unbridgeable gap between an initially positive image of humanity and the pathetic reality.
I never had a positive image of humanity. At best, I was hopeful about finding a few more people who were not completely consumed by greed, pettiness, stupidity and useless malice. This is also why I have never fallen for many of the scams that occupy the minds of most people, especially the so-called “smart” ones.
I was also always aware that my views about humans were very different from almost every single person I knew in “real” life.
You might think that my mindset has a lot to do with a generally “negative” view on life in general. This is especially likely if you grew up in a culture that celebrated mindless “positivity” and conformity masquerading as individualism. Some of you might even claim that my worldview has to do with my lack of “achievements”. Let us talk about that for a minute.
I have had more (paid) sex with more sexually attractive women than almost of you will ever have, unless you take the paid sex route.
And though not in the thousand-plus league, I crossed the hundred mark many years ago. And yes, almost all the sex I have had in the last 10 years has been of the pay-by-the-hour variety. But why did I take this route in the first place? Why don’t I spend all my free time ‘gaming’ women? As I have said before, I have nothing against the basic concepts of ‘game’ and it is good to possess a spine and self-respect. It comes down to the logical consequences of my views on other people and humanity in general.
I live to make myself happy and lack any significant interest in impressing other people.
But why live for yourself and ignore or barely acknowledge other people in “real” life? Wouldn’t that have a severely negative effect on the quality of life? What about having long-term relationships, friends, acquaintances and a supposedly rich social life? Wouldn’t living for yourself be kinda dangerous, sad and pathetic? OK.. here is my counter question.
Have you objectively analyzed the quality of life of those who live to impress other people?
Engaging with other people beyond the bare minimum or accepting hardships to gain their supposed admiration or respect would be worthwhile IF there was a proportional payoff down the line. But does it work like that in contemporary societies? Do the vast majority of those who play by the rules, try to impress others or sacrifice for others get anything worthwhile for their investments?
What about those who enter outwardly lucrative careers such as medicine or law? While they are materially better off than many others, it is very clear that most are not quite happy with their lives. Those who entered careers such as medicine, law or academia had to spend many years, probably the best ones, slaving away towards obtaining papers which allowed them to enter rent-seeking professions.
The worst part of their Faustian bargain is that almost all sexually attractive women would rather have sex with a drug addict in some minor cover band than a doctor, lawyer or academic.
The same is true for those supposedly honest CONservative, and suspiciously white, blue-collar workers. Not only are they seen as totally disposable widgets by the capitalist they worship but the women they cherish would rather have sex with a local small-time drug dealer than a supposedly honest, family-minded man aka a drone. Here is another question.. would a woman like to have a sex with a stupid mercenary (the guy who joins the armed forces) or the sly asshole who dodges authority. I have always found it odd that veterans can’t figure out that they are just washed up and damaged mercenaries who have no power to enforce the contracts made by their employers (armed forces) who in turn are a front for bunch of ultra-rich sociopaths.
I have a strong suspicion that the majority of women understand, at some level, that most of the guys they are supposed to be happy with are actually nothing more than credulous and easily manipulated morons.
Most people (especially men) are stupid suckers who get conned, fleeced and exploited and yet they will never accept they were conned in the first place. They will just vent their cognitive dissonances online and call it the ‘manosphere’. Now some of you might say.. “But what is so bad about such people. Aren’t they otherwise decent human beings who got scammed?”
Let me answer that in two parts.
1] Idiots, drones, assholes and other assorted human scum are problematic even if they are the ones left holding the empty or shit-filled bag. Their very existence allows more specialized sociopaths to flourish and inflict misery on others.
2] Most people (especially men) are solipsistic, stupid, short-sighted and selfish. They would gladly sell you out for a 20 $ bill or less. It is very unlikely that they will they ever help, or be able to help, if you required any real assistance. To put it another way, most people are reliably useless and borderline sociopaths.
Therefore there is no reason to ingratiate yourself to them, try to impress them or care about them in any way beyond the minimum necessary to keep them out of your way.
Why invest your time and effort into endeavors that don’t pay? Why play along with people who want to see you fail and suffer anyway? Why work for assholes who will get rich of your well-intentioned sacrifices? Working together and caring about each other meant something when humans lived in much smaller groups where all those things mattered and were rewarded. We don’t live like that anymore. Screw the opinions, tastes and egos of all the transient and useless people who pretend to be something they are not. Talk and promises, both explicit and implicit, are just worthless simulacra of what they used to be. Don’t get fooled by outwardly friendly and anodyne behavior that is based in deception, greed and ritual rather than anything real.
In my opinion, the most rational way to make important decisions is to constantly ask yourself- “Will this course of action increase my chances of getting what I really want, irrespective of the opinions of all those other useless people around me?”
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
More Spanking Toons: Oct 14, 2013 – More semi-realistic toons of girls getting spanked.
Amateur POV BJs: Oct 14, 2013 – Cuties working their oral magic on the glans.
More Amateur POV BJs: Oct 14, 2013 – More cuties using their lips and tongue on the glans.
As many of you know by now, I detest anything that is justified by words such as laws, rules, civilization, culture, religion or ideology. All of those respectable-sounding words are simply different versions of the same basic scam – abusing, exploiting and impoverishing people under the name of diffuse and seemingly trans-human authority.
The ephemeral nature of these supposedly trans-human concepts is especially obvious when you study the aftermath of systemic failure in older civilizations and nations.
How many of people still worship the supposedly all-powerful gods of various older civilizations that went extinct or were destroyed? What about their supposedly perfect and divinely ordained system of governance of failed civilizations and nations? What about the inherent ‘correctness’ of their belief systems, customs, rules and lifestyles? A skeptical reading of history shows us that all subjective mental models of the universe are adult versions of fairy tales. All contemporary and historical civilizations or nations (that we know of) are, and have always been, pathetic ponzi schemes.
But how is this connected to my contention that the concept of vacations helps perpetuate voluntary slavery in contemporary societies?
Before I go any further let me say this; I am not anti-vacation or pro-work by any non-sophistic definition of those terms. Doing something you don’t care about, or hate, to justify a deceptive social system paying you barely enough to live is slavery in all but name. It is especially reprehensible for this to continue in an age where increases in non-human productivity make it possible to provide universally high standards of living without everybody working hard or in many cases, at all.
Almost all modern jobs, occupations and vocations are therefore nothing more than sophistic names for voluntary slavery. They do not serve any purpose or have utility beyond making a small percentage of equally pathetic and rapidly decaying human beings feel in control.
It is about paying people to torture themselves doing largely useless stuff they don’t care about.
But what do dystopic systems based on paying people to torture themselves have to do with vacation time. Well.. it has to do with the nature of torture. See, if you torture people continuously they might stop caring or just die. That means you have to find a whole new set of people to torture. Finding new subjects for torture was easy in the old days when almost every woman has 7-10 live births. However the rapid advances in medical sciences within the last 100 years coupled with the widespread availability of contraception had caused a severe and irreversible reduction in the number of naive newcomers who could be tortured through work.
Therefore it became necessary to create concepts like vacations to allow the tortured voluntary slaves to partially recover and retain some hope for their future.
It is no coincidence that countries with multi-generational low-fertility tend to have more vacation time that relatively primitive ones such as the USA. The substantially longer duration of vacations in west-european countries is therefore not about any real moral superiority than their inability to find enough naive newbies to torture through work. It is worth noting that the USA has entered that zone (low fertility + vastly reduced total immigration) within the last five years.
What do you think? Comments?
Experience has taught me that there are many proxy markers for quickly determining the overall gullibility and stupidity of any given person or group of people. Some markers of gullibility, such as intense religiosity and following professional sports, are reasonably well-known. Other are either not well-known or seldom talked about. This article is about one of the most important and relevant markers of low functional intelligence in the modern world.
Patriotism is probably the best marker for gullibility and stupidity in modern secular societies.
But why is that so. What makes patriotism a better marker of gullibility and stupidity than belief in undead reformist rabbis, skydudes and guys with pointy tails? Well, there are many reasons.
For one, many people just don’t believe in skydudes and anti-skydudes like they used to- even a hundred years ago. Advances in science and technology combined with social changes have moderated belief in traditional religions even among those who openly profess to being extra-religious. You just can’t throw virgins into volcanoes, sacrifice animals and humans or claim to hear clear voices in your heads without looking especially stupid or mentally ill. While your basic hardcore religious moron can still selectively quote scriptures to discriminate against gays or the poor, it is obvious that their number and influence is on the decline.
But this does not mean that people have stopped believing in, and looking upto, make-believe authority.
The rise of belief in credentialed experts who speak in clever sounding mumbo-jumbo is the modern version of believing in priests, faith healers and shamans. Similarly those who believe in the goodwill of someone just he or she happens to wear expensive suits and speak politely is as gullible as someone who believed in the benevolence of luxuriously attired nobility of previous eras. Is there any difference between corporations hiring consultants and old nobility hiring shamans or fortune tellers? My point is that blind belief did not disappear with the demise of traditional religions and belief systems. It simply migrated into supposedly more modern and secular institutions.
The hyper-patriotic americans of today are as gullible and stupid as their distant ancestors who lived their lives according to the heavily-edited writings of people who heard voices in their heads.
The same is true of ethnically ‘pure’ Japanese who believe in the specialness of their race or the Koreans who also believe in something similar. West-european nations are no different. A majority of germans do actually believe that they are somehow chosen or special, not unlike scandinavians who actually believe that they are better human beings. But in spite of all their geographical and racial differences, all these morons have one thing in common.
Since they have nothing to show for themselves as individuals, they grab onto any group (real or fake) whose membership makes them feel special or less un-special than before.
This same dynamic is also seen in grown men wearing the branded gear of sport teams whose mercenary players will not even acknowledge their existence in real life. It is also visible when couples who buy expensive homes in the ‘right’ communities and then work their asses off for decades to pay for what they cannot enjoy. Also, paying more for brand names without a guarantee of proportionally higher quality is dumb.
While human existence is intrinsically meaningless, slaving to impress or enrich someone who does not care is not the rational way to make it appear meaningful.
And that is part of the reason why patriotism is so problematic. It is always about what you can do for your country and not what your country can do for you. It is about what the group (actually just a few people in that group) can extract from you for nothing in return. The peddlers and true beneficiaries of nationalistic patriotism rarely lose a fingernail while benefiting from the misguided and delusional sacrifices of stupid sheeple who lose their lives, health and much more.
Even worse, patriotism is heavily promoted by the government and all its institutions unlike traditional religions which enjoy no significant state support in most modern societies. But make no mistake. Patriotism is the modern secular version of older traditional blood-letting religions. It is about creating a fake identity brand whose cost of membership is your freedom and basic decency as a human being.
Would you willingly enter a supposedly trendy nightclub that wanted you to sign away your freedom and basic human dignity as the cost of entry? What would you think of those who did so? Would you retain membership of a social club that demanded your voluntary and enthusiastic sacrifice for enriching its elite members? Would you lose your life, limb and more to momentarily impress people who would just walk by you if you were dying on the side of a road?
All those “U-S-A, U-S-A” chants and flag-waving wont get you decent and accessible health care or job security. Patriotism wont even protect you from terrorists. It won’t stop “american” cops from shooting you dead in the streets even if you are unarmed. It wont stop various departments of the government AND its many private partners (aka corporations) from screwing you for every last dollar. And what do you get in return for all this blind trust and faith?
… anything special? anything?
Continued loyalty to groups and institutions only makes sense if they have reciprocated your initial gestures of goodwill. There is far more dignity and profit in living for yourself, even if you are an unremarkable person, than buying into some fake group that wants your blood, happiness and soul as its membership fee.
What do you think? Comments?