Archive for May, 2012

1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick: Luka Magnotta

May 30, 2012 10 comments

It seem that cannibalism is now a hot topic in north america. We had two highly publicized incidents of this phenomena in this week alone- one involved a guy eating a live human being and another apparently involves a guy killing and then eating another person.

Anyway, the video of that incident was apparently posted on Best Gore before the body parts started popping up in the mail. Since the video is a bit too long (almost 10 minutes), I will post a now famous screenshot from that clip. Don’t forget to read part of the description from that particular webpost below the picture.

Screenshot from Infamous Video

The 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick Video is filmed in a dimply lit room. A naked male is seen tied to a frame of bed while his captor stabs him in the abdomen with an ice pick. The victim is them seen with his throat slashed as his captor proceeds to slowly slice various parts of his body with a knife. Later in the video, the victim is entirely decapitated and the captor uses his kitchen knife to cut into the muscles and dismember one limb after another. The murderer plays with severed limbs and even rubs his crotch area with them. It must have turned him on because the next thing he does is flip the dismembered, decapitated corpse on its front and fuck it in the ass from behind. Using a knife and fork, the murderer then slices a piece of fatty flesh from victim’s ass and presumably eats it before bringing a hungry dog in to also feast on freshly killed man. The black and white pooch could not resist the smell of raw flesh and bit right into the stump. Once pooch was done, the murderer stuck a bottle neck up dismembered man’s anus and repeatedly assfucked him with it. Putting the severed hand into use once more, the murderer laid on his bed pantless and masturbated with it.

Did I mention that Luka Magnotta also liked to torture and kill cats? Here is the proof.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, Dystopia

People and Relationships Don’t Improve with Age

May 27, 2012 8 comments

The effort that humans routinely put into deluding themselves has never ceased to amaze me. Consider the following as a cautionary example of what the human “mind” can come up with. You must have heard numerous people say something long the following lines..

Guy X used to chase many women when he was younger. But you cannot keep on chasing them as you age and sexual desire decreases blah.. blah.. hormones blah.. blah.. So he started settling down. blah.. blah.. Now he is kinda happy. blah.. blah..

While the above mentioned meta-story might seem reasonable it is anything but that. I could attack it on many levels, but I prefer to start by stabbing at the heart of this narrative. In case you did not realize, the meta-story is meant to CON listeners or readers into believing that.

1. Phenomena reflect the natural order or patterns of nature.

2. Behavioral patterns remain constant, regardless of changes in the external environment.

3. People change for the better, and become nicer human beings, as they age.

Do you see the rational deficiencies inherent in these beliefs? Let us dissect them, starting with belief # 1 aka the ‘natural patterns’ fallacy.

As I have said in many of my previous posts, nothing in the universe is natural or unnatural. If it is feasible, it will happen and the only question then is – how often (probability). Multi-cellular organisms recognizable to us have been around for barely 500 million years. So are the plants and animals around us ‘natural’? Saying that anything is reflective of any ‘order’ or ‘pattern’ in nature is the secular version of belief in a god aka religion. No overarching super-human entity or force drives human to form relationships, create functional societies or even exist. They happen because they can happen under a given set of conditions. Furthermore, these complex systems are dependent on external conditions- some of which are influenced by internal feedback.

Whether people form long-term relationships, act cooperatively in reasonably functional societies or even want to keep on living depends on a complex and changing matrix of options and possibilities. Let us not forget that those who are old today grew up in a world that was rather different from the one we now inhabit. Their formative years and life trajectories were influenced by a different set of options, resources and possibilities. What seems ‘natural’, and ‘inevitable’ to them is often neither.

I am not implying that we have conquered aging, death or the desire for human company. My suggestion is that the nature, context, experience and possibility matrix for all of the above has changed to such an extent that extrapolations based on an older world are unreliable. For example- we now have easily available drugs for impotence, inexpensive testosterone supplements, weight training, careers that do not prematurely wear down the body, relatively inexpensive and relatively safe prostitution (in most of the developed world), ubiquitous high-quality porn and person-to-person connectivity that transcends time zones and national boundaries. At the same time, we have a society that is increasingly impersonal, uncaring, adversarial and does not offer the type of benefits which were once considered necessary to get people to care about its continued existence.

We must also question the assumption that people “change for the better, and become nicer human beings, as they age”. How many people really become “better”,”nicer”,”more humane” or “less greedy” as they age? Doesn’t experience suggest that the converse is true? Older people are generally far more selfish, untruthful, greedy and delusional than their younger counterparts. Most older people have less of whatever ‘positive’ qualities they once had. This is especially true for women who desperately cling to anything that allows them to retain some relevance and attention. The majority of women become increasingly insufferable and demanding as they age. Yes, there are exceptions to what I just said, but they are just that- exceptions.

The question you have to ask yourself is-

Given what we know about the general direction of incentives, individual capabilities and options- Is it reasonable to expect that young men today will “settle down” in semi-dysfunctional relationships as they age- even if they wanted to do so. A related question is whether the young women of today will become “better human beings” as they age.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: May 26, 2012

These links are NSFW.

Sitting Profiles: May 26, 2012 – Ya.. they are all kinda sitting, as far ass I am concerned.

Cheeky Cuties: May 26, 2012 – Want to pinch, squeeze and spank their curvy behinds?

Bottoms Up: May 26, 2012 – Ass the title says.

Soapy Cuties: May 26, 2012 – Clean bodies make for clean thoughts.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

The Audacity of Dope

May 25, 2012 3 comments

Given recent revelations about Obama’s experience and interest in smoking pot during his teenage years, I believe that his 2008 campaign slogans could be recycled with a slight change. For example..

It is somewhat ironic that his public stance about the use and legality of marijuana is so diametrically opposed to what he used to do in his teens. Here is another one..

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, LOL

The American Work Ethic is a Cancerous Ideology

May 24, 2012 13 comments

Americans in particular, and West-Europeans in general, pride themselves on their so-called ‘work ethic’. It is supposedly an important reason behind their prosperity. Now I could easily make the case that genocide, enslavement and looting of others were (and still are) the major factors behind western prosperity- but that is not the focus of this post. Instead I will show you how this supposedly superior ‘work ethic’ is a rather bizarre and pathological ideology. Let us begin by asking a simple question-

What do most people actually get out of diligent hard work?

Remember that I am not asking you what you are supposed to get out of it or what you should get out of it- theory and empty promises are not the same as real life outcomes. Religions are supposed to lead to enlightenment, peace and happiness. Eating more whole grains instead of fats is supposed to help people lose weight and become healthier.

So.. let me repeat my question- What do most people actually get out of diligent work? and is it really what they want? You can invoke the writings of any dead white man or talk yourself blue but the unpleasant fact is that diligent hard work by the dupe majority only serves to enrich a few. Did I mention that the dupe majority also assume all of the risks and take the bulk of losses.

Historically, hard work has seldom benefited those who actually did it- even indirectly. Only in the last 60 odd years has there been even a vague connection between diligent hard work and rewards.

Therefore we must conclude that all of those whites who slaved away from whenever till after WW2 were willing slaves. They were stupid enough to justify and celebrate their own exploitation slaving away at something that would not benefit them, their kids, grand-kids… well you get the picture. It is interesting to note that Blacks and Hispanics never had the same childish beliefs about the true nature of the society around them. Even events such as WW1 and WW2 show that most whites were stupid enough to enthusiastically fight and die for causes and institutions which treated them like so much cannon fodder.

But back to the main focus of this post- What does hard work achieve? Why do people work hard or at least pretend to do so? If you think about it, hard work is not (and never was) about doing something useful or beneficial. It is about dull people and willing slaves demonstrating their loyalty to his masters- for a few more scraps from the table. It is this particular disconnectedness of the willingness to work and its purpose that make it a cancerous ideology.

Here is a simple example that will help you understand my point. Let us say I decided to pay a majority of people in a group to torture and kill each others children. Would they do it? In most cultures and societies, they might take the money and maybe pretend to do it, or just forget to do it. Americans, and other assorted west-European morons, are “special” in that they will gladly torture and kill each others kids and then go on to use evidence of their deeds to claim competence and ask for some more money. Most americans, and west-Europeans, lack the ability to actually think through beyond the immediate consequences of their actions. They along with east-Asians are largely incapable to seeing the big picture. I believe that the majority of west-European and east-Asian people lack a theory of mind. Such an aspergy mind is helpful for short-term gains, kinda like cancerous cells demonstrate excellent growth and innovative work arounds the bodies defense mechanisms.

So-called “hard” work that lacks a socially useful component is rather like relentless cellular growth with consideration of its effect on the organism.They are very successful in the short-term, but at the cost of their chances for long-term survival. Social atomization only makes it worse and you end up with a society containing 300 million cancers- if you get my point.

What do you think? Comments?

The Non-Existent Linkage of Ethnic Homogeneity and Positive Social Stability

May 23, 2012 11 comments

People of a limited intellectual capacity, aka CONservatives, like to believe in a number of solipsistic myths. One of them is the rather bizarre belief that ethnic homogeneity is the key to prosperity, peace and stability. Let me begin with a simple question-

Where is the historical evidence linking ethnic homogeneity to prosperity, peace or any other form of positive stability?

As I have repeatedly said, in many of my previous posts, civilization has a rather poor record of improving the living standards of most human beings. I cannot think of any era, except the last 60-odd years, when the living standard of the median person in any civilization exceeded that of nomadic hunter gatherers. Feel free to point out evidence that this was not the case.

However the majority of ‘nations’ that ever existed was functionally mono-ethnic and the few poly-ethnic ‘nations’ in history, such as the roman or mongol empire, were exceptions rather than the rule. So why were mono-ethnic ‘nations’ from ancient Egyptian kingdoms to Victorian England unable to provide widespread prosperity, peace and stability for the median person. Can you seriously say that all of the shit, dirt and poverty in Victorian England was due to “darkies”? How was present day Australia populated? What about the extreme poverty in pre-20th century Scandinavia? Ever wonder why there are so many people of Swedish descent in Minnesota? and why did people with almost identical ancestries keep on fighting wars which killed millions of people? What part of the problems in Russia (post-1917 civil war, Stalin’s genocides, WW2) during the last 100 years was due by ethnic non-homogeneity? What part of the deaths and misery caused by Mao`s cultural revolution was due to ethnic non-homogeneity?

What percentage of the serious problems, wars, genocides and other forms of extreme misery faced by western ‘nations’ in the past few hundred years were due by ethnic non-homogeneity?

What do you think? Comments?

New Meme: Meanwhile in East Germany

May 22, 2012 6 comments

I have recently seen a few pictures based around the concept that the USA increasingly resembles a totalitarian repressive state than something close to any form of representative government. Here are two examples.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, Dystopia