Archive for November, 2011

On the Cheapness of Human Life

November 12, 2011 4 comments

It seems that many readers thought that my question about how much money it would take to hypothetically get you to kill AND torture somebody you sorta knew stuck a nerve. But isn’t such behavior common and legal? Let me give you some examples-

1. What is the per hour pay for a police ‘officer’ who accidentally kills the wrong black person? What about a swat team who “accidentally” enters the wrong house and kills the wrong black man or child?

2. What is the per hour pay for a corrections ‘officer’ who is supervising a facility containing people who are in prison for victimless crimes, minor offences or non-violent drug sales or possession?

3. What is the per patient visit pay for an ER doctor who ignores pain in a black or poor white person because they might be trying to score drugs by faking it?

4. What is the per hour pay for people who work in poorly run assisted-living facilities? What about the per hour pay for nurses whose carelessness causes pain or death of patients under their care?

5. What about the per hour wage of social workers who pretend to help those down on their luck but have a vested interest in keeping them destitute to preserve their livelihood.

6. What is the per hour wage of an HR cunt who does not hire a capable, but desperate guy, thereby setting of a chain of events that ends in that person’s death?

I can give you many more examples, but you get my point- right?

You cannot say something is different or “normal” if the intended end result is the same.


Tasteless Hypothetical Question: 11 Nov, 2011

November 11, 2011 15 comments

From time to time, I post hypothetical questions that cast light on aspects of the human psyche which we seldom acknowledge- let alone talk about. Consider this one to another in that long line of hypothetical scenarios.

What is the smallest amount of money you would torture AND kill a stranger, casual acquaintance or ‘friend’ for?

Remember that in our hypothetical example- consequences are nonexistent or immaterial but you are also in no dire need of money. So what would it take for motivating you to torture and kill people?

I would gladly do it for between 20-50 dollars, depending on how I felt on that day.


PS: Though you may not realize it now, this question is very relevant in many situations which occur around you and I will, at a later date, explain the reason behind me posing this question.

NSFW Links: 11 Nov, 2011

November 11, 2011 1 comment

These links are NSFW.

Petite Self-Shooters: 11 Nov, 2011 Petite nekkid self-shooters.

Topless Self-Shooters: 11 Nov, 2011 Self-shooters in their panties.


Categories: Uncategorized

Modern Contraception Destroyed Internal Slavery

November 10, 2011 33 comments

It is easy for a well-read person living in this connected age to see that all major systems of socio-economic organization, from capitalism to communism, socialism and pretty much every other well-known system has either failed or is in the process of failure. But why is that so? Some of you might believe that the eventual failure of all socio-economic systems is part of some grand cosmic cycle or is otherwise inevitable.

But is that really the case? What if there is another, albeit, darker explanation?

I have previously mentioned that all civilizations and cultures to date are ponzi schemes, which depend on the an ever larger supply of youthful and naive suckers to power themselves. I had also explained the mechanism, if briefly, as it relates to CONservatism. The rest of this post can be considered a somewhat more detailed explanation of the underlying mechanism and how it has powered all known forms of civilization.

While I would prefer to use colorful animations to make my point, I am not motivated enough to go through that process at this moment and you will have to do with a text-based explanation.

Let us consider two fertility scenarios-

A. The median woman has 2 or fewer kids who reach adulthood over her lifetime.

B. The median woman has 4 or more kids who reach adulthood over her lifetime.

Throughout human history, we never had scenario A except in the aftermath of famines, massive epidemics or wars. However, today scenario A is the norm even in countries where the previous generation of woman lived with scenario B.

So why is this fact important and how does it affect the structure of socio-economic institutions and ideologies?

To understand that we must understand that the number of people on earth has been fluctuating between half a billion to a billion for many centuries. The major restriction for population growth was lack of technology which led to an almost constant struggle between people for a pretty pathetic existence. You have to understand that every single ideology which we discuss, read about or live in was created during the pre-modern technology era.

This pre-modern era was characterized by a lack of technology but virtually endless quantities of youthful suckers who could be utilized or manipulated towards any end, even if it was destructive to them. Therefore all popular and somewhat successful ideologies are built around the paradigm of disposable hardworking youth to the extent that they cannot function without that ‘resource’.

So how did that work in practice?

Since it was understood, if at a subconscious level, that there were simply not enough seats in this game of musical chairs the emphasis was on normalizing and rationalizing the exploitation of both young men (for their labor) and women (for their fertility). All older socio-economic systems and ideologies therefore stressed sacrifice, duty and honor even though their own elders and elites acted otherwise.

Naive younger people were used in a number of endeavors- from fighting and dying in wars to performing back-breaking work. While their efforts created value, most did not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of their labor. The survivors and elites did however benefit greatly from the sacrifice of their naive kin. Most older ideologies celebrate fertile women primarily because they provided an endless source of suckers to burn in the ‘machine’.

That is correct! Pre-modern civilizations are best seen as ‘machines’ which use youthful disposable workers to shovel more fuel into the boiler and then use most of those disposable workers as fuel, once they are dead- just to keep a minority of the population in decent shape. Nazi death-camps and soviet gulags were therefore merely a chronologically compressed version of the basic modus operandi of pre-modern human civilization.

Every major socio-economic arrangement, ideology and theory of society is based on the implicit assumption of endless disposable youthful labor which will create value without asking and ‘disappear’ before they can demand their share of the pie they helped to bake.

Capitalism, communism, socialism and all your other -isms cannot function under conditions where the number of youthful suckers decreases to replacement levels and/or they have to make good on the promises made to the majority of individuals. Technological gains and ideological zealotry can delay the end, but not by much.

Modern contraception and bio-medical advances put a wrench in this system by creating conditions where limiting female fertility was booth desirable and necessary. It is no longer necessary to have 10 kids to have 3-4 of them reach adulthood. However the very act of voluntary restriction of female fertility also simultaneously removes the extra suckers who could be exploited and played against each other for the benefit of others.

But here is the problem- even though the supply of naive and disposable suckers had dried up and is starting to adversely affect the ‘machine’, most people especially the older generation who occupy positions of power in the hierarchy act as if the system parameters have not changed. You therefore keep on hearing solutions that involve harder work, more education, lesser paying jobs, manning up and pulling yourself by your bootstraps etc.

But all of these “solutions” are attempts at recreating a dynamic which is not resurrectable. You cannot solve the problems inherent in any of the popular -isms by acting as if things have not changed. Indeed, none of these -isms can solve problems requiring them to work without that core assumption.

We have run out of ‘extra’ naive suckers and no system which requires that pre-condition can be either stable or functional.


Work will Liberate CONservatives Through the Chimney

November 9, 2011 15 comments

White CONservatives spend a lot of their time expounding how everybody else is ‘deadwood’, lazy, inferior or ‘undeserving’ slackers. Indeed their entire world-view is based on how they are the only real ‘hard workers’ who deserve their ill-gotten gains.

During WW2, a well-known sign outside Nazi concentration camps proclaimed the gist of CONservative ideology- Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Liberates). Inmates of these work-to-death camps who were aware of the activities of such institutions used to morbidly joke that- Arbeit Macht Frei durch den Schornstein (Work brings freedom through the chimney).

Since white CONservatives are too disingenuous to argue with and too untrustworthy to have around, shouldn’t the rest of us liberate this aging and decaying group through the chimney.. I mean work.


Categories: Uncategorized

Lack of Money Circulation in a Society is Identical to Poverty

November 8, 2011 7 comments

OK, here is a question for readers-

Is there any difference between a ‘rich’ society where money does not circulate and a ‘poor’ one that lacks money?

Let me explain this with an example derived from the practice of medicine. If a person went into cardiogenic shock due to heart muscle damage after a large but initially survivable heart attack, is the person dying for lack of blood?

The correct answer is yes and no. While the effects of cardiogenic shock on the rest of the body are similar to those after a massive loss of blood, there is no significant reduction in the volume of blood after a massive heart attack. However its circulation and oxygenation-decarbonation are so severely disrupted that other organs in the body are functionally starved of blood, or more precisely what blood flow does for them.

Similarly an economic system with lots of ‘money’ but little to no flow of money is as poor as one without it. The value of money is linked to its ability to flow through a network of individuals thereby allowing economic activity. Without flow it is just a useless piece of metal, paper of magnetic state in a computer.


Why NIMBYism is Doomed

November 8, 2011 1 comment

NIMBYism has become a major socio-economic disease in the developed world within the last 30-40 odd years. As with many other social diseases, its arose from a good idea that has since been twisted beyond recognition by human greed and shortsightedness.

The idea that a person should have some say over what happens near their place of residence is fundamentally sound. NIMBYism was originally a response to the flagrant violations of all norms of land development which occurred in the post-WW2 america during the great rush to build suburbs. During the late 40s- mid 60s, large fortunes were made by falsely promising people suburban lifestyles and then overdeveloping the area without any consideration to the previous promises or residents.

However NIMBYism has since metamorphosed into something that bears little resemblance to its original form. It has been transformed by narcissism, abject stupidity, ego, activist boomer women, their whipped husbands and greed into something that is destructive to society in the long-term. While few people want to live next to a hog farm or oil refinery, micromanaging the types of households that can live in an area or blocking road construction because they may reduce the “value” of your stucco shitbox says a lot about the minds of those who engage in it.

Regardless of the reasons and worldviews driving such behavior, NIMBYism is based on the continued validity of two basic assumptions-

1. Home prices always go up.

2. The world is a steady state system.

The perceptive reader might realize that both 1. and 2. are either no longer true or were illusory to begin with. However the average suburban shrew and her whipped husband don’t care about whether their beliefs are based in reality. The sensations of ego, greed, conceit, pride, power are more than enough to overwhelm any ability to perceive reality or even its poor facsimile.

Over the years, pretty much every single reason behind NIMBYism has been slowly and painfully demolished. Living in an NIMBY-heavy community no longer gives you any of the supposed benefits of living in them, but leaves you with many conflicts, bylaws and ‘gotcha’ fines. The promise of social mobility to the upper-middle class and beyond is gone as are the stable well-paying jobs necessary to live in NIMBY-heavy areas.

Did I mention that aging and old white people with a self-righteous and delusional worldview are not fun to be around.

And then there are the effects of demographic changes, feminism, divorce laws and a host of other issues related to the number and size of family units. The ‘bust’ and the ‘echo’ generation are both smaller in absolute size than the boomers and thereby upset the scarcity calculus necessary to push up housing prices. Moreover the drop in rates of marriage, number of kids per woman, the generally poor stability of both marriages and jobs in combination with feminism-inspired laws make it much harder for men to be willing or capable of investing in preserving the conditions that led to the growth and consolidation of NIMBYism from the early-1970s to the mid-2000s.

The whipped man who religiously mows his lawn and ‘repairs’ his house to get away from his sexless marriage is getting older and older- as his ugly and bitchy wife.

Does that mean that NIMBYs are going to see the writing on the wall and act rationally? Hell, No! They have invested too much in building, expanding and preserving that delusion to just let go of it. I predict that they will stick with it till the bitter end. However given their advancing age, the upcoming failure of pension plans and their general likeability amongst the rest of the population- their end will arrive much faster than they had planned for.

But then again, it is not like the rest of us will miss their untimely demise.


Only Idiots Still Believe in the Hard Work Ethic

November 6, 2011 19 comments

The concept that “hard work makes you rich or at least middle-class” is one of those completely dishonest propaganda pieces that only a WASP or wannabe-WASP could mouth without the slightest hint of irony. Let us, for a minute, ignore the experience of people in other countries and concentrate on North America. If working hard improved your life wouldn’t black slaves and mexican agriculture workers have reached the middle-class and want to work harder?

In case some of you still believe that black slaves in a previous era or mexican farm laborers today are not hard workers, I encourage you to switch jobs with them and show us how hard work leads to a better life.

Some of the more disingenuous amongst you might say- “oops.. we meant studying and working hard in some profession or trade”. But is it true, even if you don’t care about it?

Most of you will agree that people who have successfully studied some branch of engineering at a state university or better in a developed country are both competent and knowledgeable in that area. So how come they keep getting laid off once they reach their 50s or even earliers? Does their competence really go down or is it something else? Maybe their bosses cannot exploit and abuse them with the same impunity as before or could it be that they are now due for benefits which their employers have no intention of paying out?

What about younger scientists in universities who do the bulk of work their superiors take credit for? How come they never seem to get a decent and stable job inspite of their hard work and dedication? Compare them to teachers who get significantly better compensation and benefits in the face of declining competence. Even scientists in industry who once enjoyed a good lifestyle and decent job security now find themselves cast off in their mid-50s with minimal severance pay and benefits.

In contrast we see many people in functionally useless or actively harmful occupations such as bureaucrats, administrators, administrative assistants, management, human resources etc enjoy stable and decent income regardless of the amount of “work” they do, it’ real impact or even its relevance.

We are therefore left with a tasteless choice. We have to either admit that the hard work ethic is, and always was, a lie to exploit the gullible- something that is much harder in the information age. The alternative is that those who promote that idea are too retarded to observe the world around them.

So what is it- Liar or Retarded?


CONservatism in the USA is About to Experience Blowback

November 5, 2011 34 comments

I have, in previous posts, written about how rigid world views pave the path for their own destruction. The CONservative world view is one example of a mindset which sorta worked in a low-communication, youth(sucker)-heavy society where technology driven improvements in living standard postponed the inevitable day of reckoning. However a series of social, economic, demographic and technological shifts over the last 30 years have put us on an accelerated course for the demise of this defunct ideology and its believers.

The home stretch of the demise of every failed ideology has one thing in common- overreach by its followers.

A series of events beginning with the contentious 2000 election in the USA have started a self-accelerating process of overreach by CONservatives that is leading up to their demise. The rest of this post describes the confluence of beliefs, demography and external events which is behind this final and fatal CONservative overreach.

Let me take you back to 1999-2000 (12-11 years ago) when the world was similar yet different. While many of today’s positive trends (shaved pussies, blowjobs galore) were emerging in that era, so were the negative trends. These ranged from the final repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, accelerated fictionalization.. I mean financialization of the economy and the rise of rabid CONservatism amongst the white middle-class aka the second act of the second wind of american CONservatism.

I have noticed that many observers and commentators seem to forget that the “Reagan revolution” was only the first act in the second wind of american CONservatism. His major support came from older and middle-aged whites and if you do some arithmetic, a 35-50 year old person in the early 1980s would have to be born in the 1930s-mid 1940s. This generation was too young to fight in WW2 but old enough to hit the post-WW2 economic jackpot. This peculiar mix of later ‘silent-generation’ and early ‘baby-boomers’ had a world view that was not quite as orthodox as their parents but nowhere as egalitarian as later generations.

Why did they vote for Reagan and enthusiastically embrace the ideologues behind his “revolution”?

Two reasons- One: They had never experienced the truly ugly side of capitalism as they were born after the New Deal. Two: They did not like uppity blacks, coloreds and other “minority” groups. They believed that electing Reagan and following the ideologies that guided him would usher in a white utopia where the colored would be put in their place and all would be well. In the beginning- that is exactly how things worked out as new drug laws put record number of black men in jail, law enforcement targeted colored people, “shiftless” white people were put in their place, the social security net for the ‘undesirables’ was shredded and the world did not fall apart. They did not know, then, that their chosen path would haunt them in their later years.

Initially things looked good as the period from 1980-1995 was marked by eCONomic growth, better technology, bigger houses and the fall of communism. They were therefore willing to ignore the emerging cracks in the system- from the loss of US manufacturing jobs, growing job insecurity, financialization of all aspects of the economy and breakup of old social mores. This emboldened many of the more “traditionalist” morons who in turn elected opportunists who were more than happy to use them for gaining more power. The demise of eastern-bloc communism in the late 1980s-early 1990s further boosted their self-confidence since they now believed that they had won the cold war because they were better and ‘chosen by god’.

The generation immediately after this demographic group, aka the bulk of baby boomers, saw the apparent success of CONservatism and took things up to the next level. The second and more predatory stage of american CONservatism began in the early to mid 1990s when baby boomers started to reach their peak income years. Election results in 1994 and the ‘Contract with America‘ by New Gingrich can, in hindsight, be seen as the official start of that era. It was characterized by more job insecurity, globalization and even greater financialization of the economy. However there was one major change from the previous era- it was much harder to openly abuse blacks and coloreds. Therefore the methods of discrimination and abuse had to appear more color neutral. This led to the beginning of widespread ‘zero tolerance’ policies, criminalization by bureaucratic regulations and militarization of police that we see today. The first modern attempts at large-scale suppression of black voters and restricting abortion also began around that time.

Some of these policies did have an unexpected (to many) side-effect. They gave a boost to employment in law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration which has since become a major economic force and lobby which keeps on getting larger at the expense of other sectors of the economy.

Then the inevitable happened and they ran out of enough blacks and coloreds to capture, prosecute and imprison to justify their growing size and budgets. This is when whites, first the poorer ones, started to get the type of attention that only blacks and colored used to receive in the past. It was at about this time that the “war on terror” began and allowed the unscrupulous to use it as a further justification for expansion of a security-police state.

You might have noticed that CONservatives who now vociferously support a balanced budget never missed a blink when the costs of the Iraq War initially ran over 1 Trillion (1,000 Billion) or when spending on the Afghanistan War also reached that level recently. They never complained when the budget of domestic law enforcement and ‘Homeland Security’ expanded to levels that we still cannot accurately quantify. The cost of expansion, upkeep, pay and pensions for law enforcement, prosecutors and prisons is still sacrosanct.

Instead these cultural warriors want to make abortion illegal and restrict contraception. Just have a look at the numbers of laws and initiatives to impose their world-view on that matter within the last 2-3 years. They also want to ban gay marriage to protect the sanctity of a debased, commercialized and increasingly unpopular institution of heterosexual marriage. Oh, and don’t forget that part about mandatory prayers to “Jeessuss” in schools and removing/discrediting that godless Darwin from school textbooks.

Some of you might dismiss this as the actions of retarded but well-meaning individuals. While I do support the part of CONservatives being somewhat retarded, they are not well-meaning. They are evil scumbags who deserve to disappear forever, preferably through a smokestack atop an incinerator.

So, why do I believe that CONservatism in the USA is about to experience a potentially lethal blowback?

The answer lies in a convergence of trends which have created conditions that are without any real precedent. The single biggest trend is adverse demography- specifically the lack of rapidly increasing number of greater fools to buy into the system. While this trend stared in developed countries, it has spread to many developing countries and many formerly ultra-fertile countries are close to replacement rates. The severe and voluntary worldwide reduction in the number of children per woman in the last 20-30 years has created a shortage of young and naive greater fools which are the lifeblood of any ponzi scheme. CONservatism is simply untenable without many disposable fools fighting each other for meager gains.

Then there is the issue of a break in the inter-generational contract whereby the winners of the previously mentioned competitions are no longer getting the promised positions and resources. From countries as diverse as Japan, Spain and the USA- those who played by the rules and jumped through all the meaningless hoops are finding out that they have been cheated. The ‘prize’ is either gone or never existed in the first place. To add insult to injury, or vice versa, they are finding out that modern abominations such as feminism, managerism and legalism have placed new burdens on them.

The exponential financialization of the economy and recent willful “failures” by the best-of-the-best have left many people, especially the younger ones, doubtful about traditional explanations and paradigms. The information revolution, whether it occurs via text messages on cellphones or social media and blogs, have also made a large number of younger people start questioning the very fabric of the system that allows CONservatism and other older social systems to exist. The atomization of the individual has, if anything, accelerated this trend.

The CONservatives and “leaders” who represent them, on the other hand, seem to live in a dream world stuck in the mid- 1990s, 1950s or 1850s- depending on whom you ask. They keep on trying to drown out the growing voices of dissent and discontent by enacting even more regressive policies and adopting ever more orthodox attitudes. Whether it is voter suppression, restrictions on abortion, banning evolution from textbooks, destroying the already frayed social safety net to making fun of people who are unemployed through no fault of theirs- they just cannot seem to stop.

Their worldview does not, however, make allowances for a few ‘potential’ complications.

a: They are getting older and weaker with every day. The older population in developed counties is far more whiter than the younger population and people do have memories.

b: Devoting all of their energy against blacks, coloreds and young socialists has not created a long-lasting increases in economic activity.

c: Defending “values”, “constitution” and all of that other bullshit requires a functional nation.

d: They have no allies or supply of greater fools and dissenting opinions spread fast over inexpensive and ubiquitous communication devices.

e: Few younger people care about ‘cultural’ issues such as evolution, abortion, gay marriage or aspire for over-priced stucco boxes with white picket fences- nor do they trust the system that employs them to deliver on income security.

The 2012 election might be last pyrrhic victory for american CONservatives, though even that is doubtful. In any case, it is pretty much over for them and they will just have to go way- one way or the other.


Music Video: Bedtime Story by Madonna (1994)

November 5, 2011 3 comments

In my opinion, this mid-1990s music video is amongst the best that has been ever made. It is directed by Mark Romanek who has other famous music videos to his credit such as NINs “Closer”, “The Perfect Drug” and a host of other famous AND award-winning music videos.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Music Video

Calculating the Value of People in Your Life

November 4, 2011 16 comments

Some readers might interpret the contents of this post as deeply misanthropic and sociopathic, but that is not my problem. Let me start by asking you a simple question.

Does the opinion, or approval, of others matter to you and influence your actions? and should it?

Most of you might say that it depends on the context or person. However, your actions likely suggest that you care about the opinions of those who have NO love, interest or liking for you nor the willingness to help you. If you start looking at your actions from a third person perspective, it will be obvious that you are trying to be reasonable and humane with “people” who do not harbor reciprocal feelings. I would go further and even say that- almost every single person you know in real life would, would behind closed doors, celebrate your demise.

You might counter- “how can I make such claims and where is the proof”? My answer is- the proof is all around you but you chosen to ignore its existence. Let me show you the proof and then explain why you have ‘chosen to ignore its existence’.

Are you in a situation where you are as secure as others around you, surrounded by people who care about you and some who are willing to have sex with you? Are you? If not, why not? I would guess that most of you live in a place where you barely know a few people who live around you, work in some soul crushing job with no security, are worried about bills and credit score, have zero chance of improving your life ad spend most of your waking hours faking politeness and enthusiasm. Even if you are fucking somebody- chances are that it is either unenthusiastic, comes with many preconditions, is not frequent enough or the person is overweight. The unfortunate reality is that most of the people in your life who are supposed to matter are either absent, unreliable, phony and worthless. Their presence or absence won’t be missed as they are completely replaceable and the feeling is probably mutual.

So why are you trying to please such people or care about their opinions?

Most of you accept this as reality because you don’t know any better. For most people, accepting that they were wrong about a few big things is hard enough on the ego. Believing in an alternative way of living makes your past actions and life seem like a stupid waste of time. Denial is much better easier.

But how did we get here- as a species? Let us now analyze the origin of this problem and how a change of options converted a functional system into a exploitative dystopia.

Most of you will agree with me when I say that human beings are social animals. But have you ever asked yourself the reason behind our sociability?

Whether a species is social or not comes down to the ratio of what a lonely individual can achieve versus what a mutually helpful group of individuals can achieve and whether they are aware of that possibility.

A large salt-water crocodile or shark can survive very well on its own and simply does not need other individuals of its species except for the purposes of mating. In contrast- monkeys, primates and humans cannot exist for long in the wild without some from of group protection or support system of same species individuals.

However being part of a group is not beneficial if most individuals in that group are not co-operating with others.

Throughout almost all of human history the people around you were either your kin or close friends and had massive incentives to help you. Since they did not have any worthwhile amount of money or things- human connections were everything.

Now fast forward to the last few hundred years, the last century or more specifically the last 60-70 years. The social, organizational and other changes in these time spans have progressively broken those assumptions. Today we live in an era where we have no value beyond our earning ability, assets, fame or infamy. We have also tried to replace genuine and mutual human connections with price tags, counterproductive protocols and other assorted bullshit. However we still try to act and behave as if the interpersonal relationships and opinions of people in your life had value like they used to.

This creates a peculiar situation wherein people’s needs for non-adversarial relationships are not met even though they are still expected to play by some version of the old rules.

Many morons in the alt-right blogosphere like to talk about how some men in primitive societies monopolized sex to the exclusion of other men. However that belief is projection- plain and simple. Can you find male or female virgins in primitive societies and tribes? and aren’t they having more sex than the so-called “civilized” white losers? While I am not suggesting that primitive societies are filled with peaceful stargazing commune types, it is obvious that their life looks appealing when compared to that of a white suburban pussy-whipped wage slave.

And just in case you want to bring up “life expectancy” statistics- we all die. It is therefore not when we die but how we live that really matters. If you don’t believe me- look at and talk to the pathetic and rotting white things found in nursing homes.

So what should we do? We cannot go back to the hunter-gatherer era, even if we wanted to, nor can we go back to any other era- even the 1990s.

What we really require is a new type of society- one that is based on the current ground realities as well as the quirks and peculiarities of human behavior. Of course, such a change will not occur without considerable strife as those who benefit from the status quo will try to maintain it. But what will the starting point of such a change involve?

In my opinion, the current system will destabilize when people start asking questions about its utility to them. In previous eras, the lack of inexpensive communication meant that most people with such heretical ideas could neither find each other or communicate with a wider audience. As you might know- that is no longer the case.Can you now see the title of this post and the major question posed at the beginning in a different light?


How Can Most People Save Any Money?

November 3, 2011 34 comments

Many CONservatives and LIEbertarians love to give bullshit advice such as- “Pull yourself by your bootstraps”, “You should have saved money”, “Thrift is the door to riches” etc.

But ask yourself a simple fact-based question- Given that the median per-capita income in the USA is $ 26,363/ year, can most people save a worthwhile amount of money?

While there are regional differences in cost of living and incomes, the simple fact that half of working age people (with any source of income) barely make 500$ a week should give you pause. Ever looked at the cost of basic necessities such as food, housing, utilities, medical insurance, gas and car repairs? Even the combined income of a couple who made median wage (52,726) could barely be enough to pay for a half-decent modest house, utilities, taxes, health insurance and the costs associated with having a couple of decent used cars. Even a single serious illness, prolonged job loss or another similar unfortunate but now all too common setback would put them in a downward spiral with no exit. Did you realize that the above costs do not include things like student loan repayment, costs associated with having and raising kids, parking tickets, fines for bullshit offenses and a host of other unexpected costs.

If you believe that people making the median per-capita income or less can save a worthwhile amount of money- show me the calculations and assumptions.


Incrementalism is the Enemy of Progress

November 1, 2011 6 comments

A popular lie propagated by so-called educated scumbags goes something like this-

Change is always incremental and we should therefore let self-anointed “experts” choose the best pathway for it.

But is this really true- either in the natural world or human history? Change is not incremental, predictable or controllable. It comes with its own momentum, direction, step-size and panoply of downstream effects. Some of my older posts have talked about it at length with specific examples such as- Birth Control Destroyed CONservatism, How The Online World Displaces The Traditional
and Economic Impact of Reduction in Couple Formation. This post is, therefore, not a rehash of the previously mentioned examples- but an attack on the popular lie that incrementalism can achieve change without significant disruptions of the status quo.

Consider the issue of obtaining civil rights for non-whites. While many white morons long for the 1950s, it was not a good time to be non-white in the USA. The unpleasant truth is that whites saw, and many still see, non-whites as third-class human beings. There was simply no way that civil rights for non-whites could have come through any incremental changes to the system. Nothing short of major changes to the system could have even been partially successful in achieving the society we live in today. As some of you might know, that is exactly what happened in the end. There are no half-measures in change, just as a woman cannot be slightly pregnant.

Similarly, capitalism cannot be reformed nor can we really create a kinder version of capitalism. Believing it is as absurd as imagining a form of communism without some form of totalitarianism. It is as futile as building large airliners with piston and jet engines and possessing both straight and swept wings.

Did you get my point? A person can ‘fly’ in airplanes with straight winged airplanes with piston engines (DC-3s) or in swept wing wide-body jetliners (A320s)- but an airplane that incorporates both is not viable. I not suggesting that you should fly in an untested deathtrap but you cannot have both the old and new if their requirements contradict each other.

Capitalism, in all its forms, is a zero-sum game that works well in a world with true scarcity of resources and things. It simply does not work well in a world where machines and cheap energy (mostly non-oil) remove the constraints behind true scarcity.

Attempts to create artificial scarcities in a technology based and highly connected world have the potential to destabilize the system in ways we cannot even imagine, in addition to those we can imagine and observe. Consider for a moment the multiple downstream effects of the toxic combination of job insecurity and feminism on things as diverse as kids per woman to various facets of the unstable atomized nature of the society we live in today. I could give you many examples of system defects and distortions caused by this combination. However, I am aware of the attention span of the average reader and will conclude this post with a thought-

You can pick the general direction of change- but not the route, stops, mode and destination.