Archive

Archive for April, 2010

Scorched Earth: 1

April 20, 2010 8 comments

One consistent theme throughout the PUA blogosphere concerns self improvement. While the idea seems logical, implementation is a big stumbling block.

You can be as buff, as tall, as smart-ass as you want.. but the women you are seeing can always find a better deal. Remember that we live in cities with hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.

Moreover, most people will never have a super job or glamorous/profitable business etc. Add into that laws and social mores which favor women, and you will realize that you can never win over an extended time period, except by luck.

So what is the alternative? I have one idea, that is disturbing and fascinating at the same time.

Scorched Earth

You can be a sociopath for profit, or you can be sociopathic for fun.

What is wrong in being sociopathic for fun? It is perfectly possible to insult, manipulate, abuse, mislead to hurt people even if it does not profit you. It is also very easy to not stop people screwing up, let them make mistakes and never help, even if asked.

The best part is that you can do this without a lot of extra effort. You just have to lose your humanity, which is quite easy. Think of all the people who have crossed you and just do much worser to anyone who fits their profile, even remotely.

There are entire groups and types of people I would never help even if I was the only person on earth capable of helping them. I would rather prefer to watch them perish, hopefully in great pain and agony.

You cannot change human behavior, but you can help them reach their end faster.

You might wonder about the legality of such behavior. The way I see it, as long as you did not explicitly break an enforceable law.. who cares? Infact you can use the alphabet soup of law to cover your ass and make it appear as a logical choice.

The easiest way to screw up a complex system is to not perform your expected duties with the minimum required efficiency. If you can disrupt the feedback loops and the robustness of a system, it will either fail or weaken enough to let random low probability events do their job.

I will post some of my more evil, but perfectly legal, ideas in future posts on this topic.

Why Should I Care: 3

April 20, 2010 2 comments

In the previous post of this series, I alluded to a scenario where whites in western countries would have to accept their “new” status. This post will be devoted to an analysis of various scenarios. Let me begin by saying that the future is not predictable with very high degrees of certainty. Idiots, mostly ‘educated’ white men, however do suffer from delusions about their ability to accurately prophesize the future.

I make no such claims, and will stick to analyzing and describing what I see. You can choose to believe it or not.. but don’t believe in anything because someone ‘respectable’ says it. Use your brain and the available evidence to evaluate it.

There is always a tiny probability of freak and unforeseen circumstances such as aliens revisiting earth and anointing whites as the master race. I shall also explicitly not consider events such as global natural disasters and wars, because either would leave far fewer white survivors because of the demographic profile and the extreme dependence of life in the west on “things working properly”. If you do not believe me, consider what a 3 week countrywide blackout would do to the US. The institutions, technology and systems of the west are very effective against small scale disasters and brief large disasters. Frequent medium scale or prolonged large scale natural disasters will however render them nonfunctional. The west also cannot win any large scale war for reasons that I will write about in another post.

So absent any gods, aliens, big natural disasters or wars- there are three basic directions.

Direction 1- The number and percentage of non-whites in the west declines.

Whether this happens because of conflict or economic opportunity, the effects on the west will be devastating. The current paradigm of western economics is based on continued growth. The worst our current system can handle, without coming apart, is stagnation. Prolonged demand deflation will kill the system. All assumptions and projections that underlie trust in the west are dependent on a belief in continued growth. Everything from jobs, business incomes, security, law and order are dependent on that belief, and its corollary- that promises of future payouts are doable.

People will lose faith in the system if promised payouts cannot be made, or become useless (not worthless), and there will be a mad ‘rush for the exits’. Deflation, rather than inflation, will cause these problems for reasons I have touched on in previous posts (deflationary spiral). While monetary deflation can be countered with easy money (at least for some time) systemic deflation is basically unstoppable unless real demand increases.

Since whites have been reproducing at or below replacement levels for a few decades, the promises made by western countries to its citizens and external creditors cannot be fulfilled within the current economic paradigm. Non-white immigrants and their kids are the only hope to possibly reach stagnation, rather than implode via deflation. I will explain that point in more detail in the next post of this series.

Direction 2- The number and percentage of non-whites in the west remains at current levels or gradually increases.

This direction would buy a few more years, but the end result would be the same as Direction 1. A highly leveraged system based on projections of accelerating future demand is fundamentally flawed. Playing around with the numbers on a small scale buys can buy a year or three, at the most.

We will ultimately have to transition to an economic system based on different assumptions than our current one (whether we like it or not). Our current system has a lot of inbuilt zero-sum based thinking which in combination with our technology and institutions will kill us. However, transitioning into a new system takes time and is a messy process. Neither Direction 1 or 2 will give us enough time to transition into anything better. We will be either dead or killing each other before the new operating system boots up, even if we start building the new operating system right now. There will be no winners, just various degrees of death and destruction.

Direction 3- Drastically increase the number of people living a western middle-class level lifestyles.

I will discuss the third possibility in more detail and its potential effects in the next part of this series.

Military Decline of the West: 1

April 20, 2010 4 comments

The blogosphere is populated by a range of opinions concerning the future (or lack thereof) for the “west”. However many still do not understand the basic reasons behind the decline. Some even believe that we could just go back to “earlier times”.

This series of posts will be devoted to understanding why the west is in military decline. Many people believe that the west could still win if “we are as ruthless as before”. Nothing could be farther from reality, but then again most people do not like that concept.

So here it goes:

The west has never won a lasting victory against an adversary that was not living in the stone age or prone to introduced infectious diseases.

The success of whites in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia had more to do with overwhelming stone age cultures (of varying degrees of sophistication) with gunpowder weapons and accidentally introduced diseases. The vast majority of casualties among the indigenous people of these areas were due to infectious diseases.

The west has never experienced a lasting victory in Asia or Africa, because they either faced people who were better organized or more resistant to infectious diseases. In the case of Africa, infectious diseases killed and crippled more whites than the natives ever could.

The original military expansion of the west by driven by the need to steal resources.

However, for the last hundred years, making the resources into “things” and selling them is far more profitable than stealing resources. Resources by and large are inexpensive compared to the value added products and services derived from them.

Nobody wants to wage war for reserves of gold, silver, wood, metals, grain, tea, coffee when it is cheaper to pay people to sell them to you.

Cannon fodder is getting scarce and expensive.

In previous eras, religion, poverty, nationalism, a general lack of education and communication made it easy for western countries to recruit cannon fodder. Today, it is much harder as people are less stupid, more cynical and less desperate.

The weapons of previous eras were also much more simpler, and required a smaller logistics train. High casualties were almost expected, and we did not have the communication infrastructure we have now. Weapons today are also far more expensive, specialized and require far longer logistics trains than in the past. Prolonged wars are expensive.. especially now.

Weapon technology has spread, thus destroying the west’s advantage.

Today your insurgent, warlord, rebel is very likely to have automatic weapons, RPGs, improvised mines and many non-western countries behind him. Did I mention that they have far more motivated volunteers?

It certainly does not help that they look and dress like the civilian population, and often are locals. The west cannot do what it could have got by with in the past, because there are many non-western powers behind such groups. It is just too risky in a world where you can turn the screws by disrupting oil supply, and now asian countries produce most of what the west uses. You cannot attack your major trading partners and not expect your economy to turn to crap.

Nukes.

it is hard to ‘win’ if notional victory can hurt your country as much as defeat. Even a much smaller nation with nukes can cause severe and lasting damage to the west, without using missiles.

The game is just too risky, unless they threaten to use first.

I will explore some of these issues in more detail, and a few other new ones in my next post on this topic.

The iPhone Scoop is Plausible

April 19, 2010 Leave a comment

In case you still have not heard about it: gizmodo.com scored a prototype of the next gen iPhone. I have been following this scoop for the last 3 days. I now think that the “found” device is probably the new iPhone. However, I think it is a publicity stunt.

The device is plausible because it is looks reasonable and confirms previously leaks. In any case apple cannot go far beyond their original hardware because the new OS has to run on the iPhone 3gs too..

From Gizmodo:

What’s new

Front-facing video chat camera
• Improved regular back-camera (the lens is quite noticeably larger than the iPhone 3GS)
• Camera flash
Micro-SIM instead of standard SIM (like the iPad)
Improved display. It’s unclear if it’s the 960×640 display thrown around before—it certainly looks like it, with the “Connect to iTunes” screen displaying much higher resolution than on a 3GS.
• What looks to be a secondary mic for noise cancellation, at the top, next to the headphone jack
• Split buttons for volume
• Power, mute, and volume buttons are all metallic

What’s changed

The back is entirely flat, made of either glass (more likely) or ceramic or shiny plastic in order for the cell signal to poke through. Tapping on the back makes a more hollow and higher pitched sound compared to tapping on the glass on the front/screen, but that could just be the orientation of components inside making for a different sound
• An aluminum border going completely around the outside
• Slightly smaller screen than the 3GS (but seemingly higher resolution)
• Everything is more squared off
• 3 grams heavier
16% Larger battery
• Internals components are shrunken, miniaturized and reduced to make room for the larger battery.

Here is the video

and some pictures

Categories: Uncategorized

Weekend Art – Bare: April 17, 2010

April 17, 2010 1 comment

Enjoy!

and don’t complain that they are not black enough. Many black people in the US have significant non-black ancestry.

PS- This is artistic and tasteful nudity.

Categories: Uncategorized

Weekend Art: April 17, 2010

April 17, 2010 1 comment

I have often heard many white men say that non-white women are not as attractive as white women. I believe that such an opinion is based more on prejudice and circumstances than reality. For years, you rarely saw good looking non-white women photographed properly. This had more to do with issues related to content distribution and cost of equipment than the paucity of non-white hotties.

The widespread availability of the internet and cheap/ high quality digital cameras has changed that for good. Look at the pictures and let your body decide.

These pictures were taken from ModelMayhem and I chose female, black models in Florida and just went through a default search.

I will put the very bare in another post.

Categories: Uncategorized

Note: 2

April 17, 2010 Leave a comment

I have decided to post my racier stuff on weekends, so that people do not have to access if from their work computer.

Seriously people this is 2010.. get an iPhone or android smartphone and either view it on your smartphone, or just tether it to your laptop at work!

Categories: Uncategorized

Sore Naughty Gals

April 15, 2010 9 comments

Feeling the stinging and burn..

Categories: Uncategorized

Random Thoughts: 14

April 15, 2010 8 comments

One of the laments frequently heard in the blogosphere goes something like this:

“Women are unpredictable, entitled and manipulative bitches who, want a lot but, give little.”

a corollary to that lament is:

“(White) men have lost their balls (or masculinity).”

Women behave the way they do for one simple reason: Because they can get away with it!

It has nothing to do with evo-psych or any other ivy league vodoo. It is intrinsic to human nature.

Power, without accountability, will always corrupt!

Every person can be corrupted by power, some more easily than the other. There is a reason most democratic systems have this quaint notion called “balance of power”. If you let a person become Caesar, he/ she will become Caesar.

White men allow white women to get their way because many are deluded and conned into believing that white women are the most desirable. Many men will go to great lengths to marry, date or be seen with white women only. Some of it comes from pride, some from brainwashing, some from self delusion and a lot from external social pressure.

Tell me something: If you came across an attractive woman who was not white and willing to have sex with you, would you refuse it? Having used escorts of many different races and mixes, I cannot say that good sex with one attractive woman is different from good sex with another attractive woman. Sure.. you can like certain physical features more and so on.. but fundamentally a hottie is a hottie. If she gives you a hard boner, knows how to ride you well and give a mean BJ- she is good enough.

Men want women as sexual partners, reliable companions and good mothers to their kids. Have you ever seen any racial differences in any of those criteria. If anything, non-white women are often more fun in bed. Given the mediocre reliability of white women as companions, anything else cannot by definition be worser.

Lastly, women love their own kids, just as much- irrespective of race. Some may have more opportunities than others, but a non-white woman loves her kids just as much a white woman.

A lot of the attitudes of white western women are due to how white men treat them.

The true beginnings of feminism can be traced to the point at which white men started believing in their innate racial superiority (1700s). Read about Victorian, old southern and other traditional views about the innate superiority of white women. You created the monster!

An ideology where superiority is dependent on being white, increases the relative cost of white women. However white women were hamstrung until technology and medicine advanced to a level where they truly could get away with it. That happened in the early 50-late 60s.

It is your belief that sustains the monster. Stop treating them as better, or more desirable, than others.

But to do so will require you to stop believing in racial superiority, and therein lies the catch.

WinScape

April 15, 2010 2 comments

Once the effective pixel size is equal or smaller than the minimum angular separation your eyes can resolve (1 arc minute or 1/60th of a degree), you cannot tell the difference between an image and reality. We crossed that threshold in LCD/ plasma display technology about 3 years ago. I anticipated this development, in the format shown in the video clip, about 3 years ago.

This is only the beginning.. it is gonna get much better than this.

Morpheus: What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Categories: Uncategorized

The Necessity of Progressive Taxation: 01

April 13, 2010 2 comments

Many CONservative idiots, and their ilk, oppose progressive taxation. I am going to dissect their arguments in this series of posts.

First let us define progressive taxation:

Progressive taxation is a method of determining tax rates based on the income of taxpayers, such that those who earn more pay more.

CONservatives and libertarians are usually strongly opposed to progressive taxation. I have to say that seeing a stupid tool give his tormentor the biggest dildo available is somewhat amusing.

Ironically it was Adam Smith (“invisible hand of market” guy) who wrote:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

One of the most popular myths against progressive taxation is that only the rich create jobs, and that we should therefore give them more money.

My counter-question is: jobs doing what and for whom?

The rich constitute the majority of economic activity only in feudal and neo-feudal systems. Such systems are fairly unstable and in our current world untenable beyond a generation or so. Most economic activity in developed countries is between average people, and almost all jobs are meant to satisfy their needs, wants and desires.

How many of you have jobs that create products or perform services exclusively for the rich?

To keep this circulatory system of money going, it is necessary to prevent money leakage or concentration (or even increase it as necessary). The rich will always try to monopolize and concentrate money even if it is to their own ultimate detriment.

Let me explain with an example:

Consider two roughly equivalent systems:

In system 1, the state tries to tax the bottom 95% to within an inch of their existence while pretending to tax the rich 5%.

In system 2, the state does not tax the bottom 95%, but collects reasonably high taxes from the top 5%.

Which system will last longer?

CONservatives and libertarians would suggest that system 1 would fail before system 2. They would advance the specious argument that the rich will just do business elsewhere. My answer is: let them try!

You see, return on non-financial investment for almost any business in our world depends on the ability of consumers to buy items/ services. If the consumers has no money or credit, businesses cannot survive let alone make profits or grow. Since ww1, and especially after ww2, the average middle class person is the biggest consumer in developed countries.

If you remove non-debt-based money from the average consumer through layoffs, “cost-cutting”, “smart management”, off-shoring, growing inequality, excessive credit- you are destroying the very circulation that keeps the world going. Most people are however oblivious to this fact, because they have been suckered by the false money created through financialism in the last 30 years.

Money created through financialism cannot support a real economy for long. It is not real in that it cannot buy more than a fraction of its paper value in goods and services. Such money is notional, and requires to made real through selling the financial instrument for fiat currency. You can however extract some value out of notional money as long as there are bigger fools to buy your financial instrument. But watch out when everyone runs for the exit!

Saving and hoarding excessive money also take it out of the real economy and put it in a useless place- a.k.a a bank. You might think that banks loan money against their savings, but that is simply not true. Reserve requirements are for all practical purposes fictional, and have always been so (even in the days of the gold standard).

Banks have ALWAYS created money out of thin air, and then expected you to pay it back with real products and services.

Ultimately it is the average person’s spending that keeps our world going. The more they spend, the better everyone is- especially the rich. Therefore progressive taxes should be seen as a way to balance the flow of money in our economy by keeping its velocity and rate of flow high enough to prevent significant leakage or stagnation.

If you give a taxbreak to an average person, he/she will spend it and thereby create more jobs. If you give a tax break to the rich they will take that money out of the real economy and either invest it in a financial ponzi schemes or store it in a hole in the ground. The rich never invest in productive endeavours unless they are forced to, because making money off money is much easier.

More in my next post in this series.

Rationing Sex is Now Futile and Counterproductive: 01

April 13, 2010 15 comments

A lot of blogs suggest that women ration sex because they hate “beta” men. There is no doubt that women prefer to create an artificial and chronic shortage of sex. However the motivation is far more likely to be about maintaining leverage over men. Think about it.. most women can never get the most “desirable” men. They are pretty much stuck with average men, and prior to the 1980s had to make do with them.

Leveraging an artificial scarcity of sex to obtain maximal material gain is a far more straightforward explanation for the behavior of women that evo-pysch vodoo. While this strategy might have worked for a long time, the world that we now live in has certain features that make such behavior counterproductive. Before explaining why such behavior is now counterproductive, let us recap the conditions under which such behavior was not counterproductive.

Rationing sex to increase its apparent value worked in a world where:

1. The majority of men had limited intra-country geographical mobility.

2. Society was not anonymous, and public persona/face was important.

3. Opportunities for international travel/ relocation were very limited.

4. Porn and prostitution were discouraged/punished by effective socio-legal mechanisms.

5. Women were given the benefit of doubt for all their misdeeds.

6. Freedom of speech and expression was tightly regulated and opportunities to communicate with like-minded individuals are limited/ expensive.

For most of history, women exploited the above stated conditions to ration sex and extract maximal resources from men. However there have been a few changes over the last 30 years..

Rationing sex is a viable strategy only as long as men believe they have a good chance at a half decent sex life. Once they lose hope, become cynical, have no emotional attachment or simply do not or cannot care..the gig is up.

A previously workable strategy suddenly becomes counterproductive, and induces negative feedback in the system

A. While geographical mobility increased substantially in post-ww2 western countries, most men quickly “settled” down with one woman or a series of women. Dysfunctional or serial monogamy was therefore the norm for most of the past 60-70 years. Ever wonder how badly dressed/ geeky/ plain-looking guys in previous eras got laid and were having kids by their mid- to late- 20s? If you don’t believe me, look at pictures of couples from the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Now ask yourself- why is that no longer the norm and what are it’s downstream effects?.

Men who have poor experiences with women in their 20s are unlikely to settle down or follow the conventional life trajectory expected out of them. You cannot obtain resources from men through rationing sex if they do not believe a fair deal is possible.

B. Anonymous urban/ suburban living did not start with the development of suburbs or “greater metropolitan areas”. Most people prior to the 1980s were well engaged in communities that they lived in, even if they moved around a lot. It was the gradual loss of job security that created anonymous urban/ suburban living. Nobody wants to contribute to an enterprise that rapes them. A dog-eat-dog society creates adversarialism with little attachment or empathy for such a society.

Enforcing the rationing of sex through reputation/ face/ shaming only works if men have something to lose socially..

C. Prior to the late 1980s, people were pretty much stuck in the countries they were born in. People who interacted and worked with people from other countries were the exception, not the rule. Most people got their country stereotypes from the mainstream media.Then cheap foreign travel and job opportunities happened. Nowadays, living in non-western countries and large cities does not necessitate giving up almost any of the trappings, conveniences or advantages of living in the west.

It is hard to enforce rationing sex if men can live/ work or visit other countries, where they could get a better deal.

D. There have been major changes in attitudes towards porn and it’s availability since the 1980s. The quality of available content and performers now often exceeds mainstream entertainment. Every obscure fetish and preference is now catered to, at competitive rates. A lot of high quality content is now free or peer-generated. You can enjoy any type of porn at a location and time of your choice. I have often entertained myself at airports by watching porn on my iPhone or laptop.

Rationing sex is unworkable if the quality, access and “fit” of available porn exceeds the services provided by an average woman.

E. Men born after 1970 have grown up in a world where they saw the assumptions of older generations of men turn to dust. They have seen the death of lifetime jobs, stable marriages, decent career paths and have therefore rightly become cynical about the old ways. This extreme cynicism extends to their views about women. Unlike previous generations, a significant percentage of men no longer treat women well by default. The use of widely understood words such as mangina, doormat, pushover, white-knighting etc is a signal of larger mindset shift.

Most men born after 1970 have no significant mental connection to their kids, or often.. have no kids. They have far less investment in keeping the peace with women and accepting BS, unlike previous generations. Did I mention that women past their late 20s have a fraction of the sexual bargaining power of their younger selves.

F. Widespread availability of the internet and net based services have changed the nature of public discourse, in ways that were never anticipated. Consider the effects of forwarding webpages, video clips, animations, articles to your acquaintances. Bulletin boards, blogs and social media have had a far larger impact on public discourse than most people realize. These effects are only going to accelerate in the future, partly due to the loss of credibility by the main stream median and press.Cheap computers, net access and AV equipment have removed old cost barriers to promoting various alternative viewpoints..

More in the next part of this series.

Curves: 01

April 11, 2010 8 comments

How did they make you feel?

Did you care about their race, BMI, proportions, IQ or profession?

Or were you just trying to adjust your erection after thinking about having hot and passionate sex with them.

Come on.. be honest.

Categories: Uncategorized

Women and Bankers

April 10, 2010 8 comments

The famous american author and humorist- Mark Twain reportedly once said:

A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.

Women are a lot like banksters in that they will give you pussy only if you prove you don’t need it in the first place. No sooner than you need it, they will restrict or remove access to their pussy.

While this observation about the similarity in behavior between women and banksters might seem coincidental, it is not. Both are rent seeking parasites. Let me explain..

Women give access to pussy to increase their status among their peers (other women). They do not give you pussy because you are a good investment. Women that actually invest their lives in men are incredibly rare, if they exist at all.

Women, just like banksters, invest their pussy with men who are considered to be good catches by other women. Their actions are based on a ‘beggar thy neighbor’ mentality. Just like banksters, women lack the ability to choose emergent opportunities well. Their whole existence, just like banksters, is based on the myths of their indispensability and innate superiority.

The ‘wisdom’ and ‘intuition’ of women are a lot like the sophistic and fraudulent financial models of banksters. They make them up as necessary and justify them later, or just forget about failed predictions. They depend on your gullibility and acceptance of their “superiority”.

They are leveraging their looks and access of pussy to destroy other competitors (women), and extract rent (alimony and child support) for enterprises which they did not participate in. They want a lot of leveraged profit for minimal risk, and the ability to liquidate your assets for “investments” if you ‘fail’- which they would have given to you anyway. Remember that it is they who define what is ‘failure’, and will withdraw credit (pussy) even if your business (life) is doing OK.

Just like all rent seekers, they will provide less services and credit (sex) as the relationship matures, but will expect more and more profits (often at your expense and viability). How many middle aged women who want a new house or car will even blow their guy properly on a weekly basis. Think about it..

They expect to be bailed out for their mistakes, and made whole again, just like banksters. You can keep finding reasons to bail them out and justify their behavior, just like you can find new ways to hang yourself.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with women is to understand that they are rent seeking parasites and treat them accordingly. You cannot change the world, but you can change your interaction with it. Their power lies in you playing the game with their rulebook, so stop playing it by their rulebook.

Note: 1

April 10, 2010 2 comments

In case you are wondering, I am working on many posts. Making some of my posts sound less violent and mean is harder than I first thought.

Some issues arouse deep passions in me. A lot of that stuff is deeply disturbing for most people to read. Editing posts to convey the depth of my contempt for many institutions, professions and ideologies without calling for genocide and torture is hard work..

Will post a couple of the refined posts later today.