Archive

Archive for October, 2012

Circular Reasoning and Nostalgia in the CONservative Mind

October 30, 2012 23 comments

One of the more peculiar fetishes of the CONservative mind is it obsession with the world as it used to be. Somehow they believe that things, institutions and mores are good simply because they have ‘stood the test of time’. As some of you might realize, this is a form of circular reasoning whereby people justify something they want based on the belief that it used to always exist.

It is as if the prior existence of something, however undesirable, legitimizes its existence in the CONservative mind.

These disingenuous morons are however oddly selective about labeling something as good based on its prior existence. So according to them rule by assorted kings, nobility and hereditary elite is fine but living in cities without a functional sewage system is not. Given that the rise of greedy assholes and the poor sewage disposal are both consequences of urbanization and agriculture, why celebrate one but reform the other? Surely the best way to enjoy the former is to live in an era where half-starving people crap/piss everywhere and bathe once a month (or less).

But why stop there.. what about trying people for witchcraft and killing them? Since accusations of malicious witchcraft have been a part of human society for a few thousand years and across lines of race or religion, bringing back public trials for witchcraft should provide entertainment while maintaining a long-beloved tradition. Witch trials just fits in so well with slavery and indentured labor– practices which the USA is returning to anyway. While we are at it- What about rehabilitating Pederasty a most beloved institution of the greco-roman world which is supposed to the fountainhead of western ‘civilization’. Why let Afghan warlords have all the fun?

Then there is the issue of religion based wars. What was so wrong about crusades, jihads and other assorted religion-based wars? Since killing people because they believe in the ‘wrong’ voice in your head was OK for most of the last few thousand years, what is wrong in bringing such things back. We cannot forget mass murder based on race or ethnicity.. wasn’t that stuff very popular right into the last century. Or what about stealing land from other people? For all the talk of “property rights” and “western civilization” it is hard to imagine the world of today without the genocide of indigenous populations in the Americas and Australia.

What do you think? Comments?

What Drove the NYC Nanny to Kill?

October 27, 2012 28 comments

I often analyze contemporary events from view points that don’t ignore the obvious, but largely unsaid, factors contributing to said event. As many of you have heard by now, a nanny stabbed two kids of her employer to death before trying to commit suicide. A number of media outlets are trying to demonize the nanny and try to convince you that killing the children of a rich white couple was an especially inhumane. But is that really the case?

Let us first summarize what we know about the ‘killer nanny’ at this time. Firstly, she (Yoselyn Ortega) was originally from the Dominican republic but had lived in the USA for over a decade. It is interesting to note that Yoselyn had worked for the Krim family for over two years and they had no real issues with her until she killed their two kids. To me, this suggests that the nanny was not intrinsically evil or diabolical. We then have to ask the next question- What drives a 50 year old woman who had worked in child care for many years to stab to death the very kids she was supposed to care for?

One of the first clues about what drove her actions comes from reading between the lines of an article about whether financial problems contributed to the murders.

A source told the Post that “Ortega, a Dominican who has been an US citizen for 10 years, complained of money troubles, and her employers, Marina and Kevin Krim, had given her more hours of work. They even hooked her up with a family they knew for a baby-sitting job on the side — but the family turned her down after an interview because she was, ‘a little too grumpy,’ a law-enforcement source said.”

I cannot but help wonder why her employers were so unwilling to give her enough money to live a half-decent life in NYC. What is the harm in paying your employees enough to live a decent life?

However, the person Ortega was renting the apartment from returned and kicked her and her son out, sending them to live with her sister. The Times adds, “Twice, Ms. Ortega asked Ms. Lajara to pray that a woman would pay her for makeup she had given her to sell. The amount, Ms. Lajara said, was about $100, and it was important to her… Ana Bonet, 40, a neighbor, said that besides her nanny job, Ms. Ortega sold inexpensive jewelry and makeup to neighbors. Others said she also earned money by cooking rice and chicken dishes for parties.”

So, she was not paid enough to be able to afford renting an apartment with her presumably adult son. She (and her son) ended up moving in with her sister inspite of caring for the kids of people who had thousands of times more money than her. Her financial situation was so tight that she was concerned about making 100$ more from selling makeup. Did I mention that she also worked catering gigs.

What type of society pays people so badly that even a hard-working person with multiple jobs can barely make ends meet? Does such a society even deserve to exist?

How would you feel if you were struggling for a couple of hundred bucks while the rich assholes who employed you to take care of their kids did precious little to help you. Words of sympathy don’t pay bills or the rent. Does a society which pretends to care about you while screwing you at every turn deserve to exist? How long will people take such abuse before making their tormentors hurt?

Now there are those of you who might agree with me about the systemic mistreatment part but say that killing her employers kids was still not the right thing to do. In my opinion the killing of her employers kids was the most rational response because only something as irreversible as the death of their own children can hurt people to the same extent as a life time of systemic socio-economic abuse. In any case, these kids would have grown up to be consummate parasitic plutocrats just like their parents. We don’t mourn the death of baby parasites, just because they are not adults.

I see her actions as far more rational than most people who keep up taking such abuse without striking back at their oppressors. What is the point in taking abuse if you have no better future to look forward to? What is the point in letting assholes live just because they are well dressed whites? What is the point in letting life long anger and depression at your mistreatment only hurt you?

If systemic abuse, deprivation and depression are the rewards of playing by the rules- why not share these rewards with others? If fucking someone over for years builds the characters of poor people, won’t it do the same for rich people?

What do you think? Comments?

Making Humans Disappear: 2

October 23, 2012 7 comments

In my previous post in this series, I had mentioned that the next one would be about how the rise of ‘free agents’. Now most of you might be wondering- “how can individuals get anything done?”

Throughout history, humans have primarily relied on collective actions to get things done. Even today most of you think that any ‘real’ change will require mass demonstrations, occupy type protests, wars or revolutions. I however think that we have reached a point where asynchronous individual actions are far more disruptive to the system than collective actions. But that is not my only objection to collective action being an effective agent of change.

The real problem with using collective action to achieve anything is that most human beings are dishonest cowards who will delude themselves into believing that are otherwise.

You might have noticed that mass movements, protests, wars and revolutions often replace one group of assholes with a marginally better versions of them. It is as if mass actions, for all the sacrifices of their members, fall far short of their goals. Conventional explanations for this phenomena talk about betrayal of the cause etc.. conveniently forgetting that all people who want to be leaders are remarkably alike.

You cannot replace one defective structure with another one based on the same basic plan and expect change.

Any real change requires destroying the defective structure without building a replacement. However most people will not do that because they are afraid of an uncertain future and will always choose a recycled shitty world over one that truly breaks from the past. But why do people choose a guaranteed shitty existence over a reasonable chance of change and/or nonexistence? Some of you might say that people are afraid of death, but that is only a partial explanation at best. Pretty much every human understands that they and their creations are mortal and perishable. Furthermore, we have no shortage of people who will indulge in activities and enter professions with a realistic chance of premature death.

So what has stops most people from destroying the system that makes their lives miserable?

To understand what I am going to talk about next, you have to start looking at human history and societies as a real outsider- almost an extraterrestrial alien. One of the most well-known, but often ignored, aspect of human beings is that they are social animals who require others of their kind to exist for reasons beyond basic needs. A lot of the stupid, bizarre and self-destructive behavior of humans only makes sense if you factor in the need to belong to a group.

But is this need to belong to a group independent of the result of previous efforts to do so?

Will you keep on going back to the same people who exploited your desire to belong? While people might continue trying to play nice with shitheads upto a point, everybody has a breaking point beyond which they have no interest in belonging to that group. It does not help that modern neo-liberal societies continuously try to abuse the desire to belong for short-term profits. Today belonging to almost any group or participating in any social institution is an act of stupidity as you will lose far more than you get from such interactions. You might have noticed that almost everything from marrying, buying and living in your own house, working hard to move up in life or belonging to any ‘real life’ social group is a big fucking waste of time with negative gains for the individuals who indulge in such activities.

We live in a ‘stranger’ society where everybody pretends to be friendly but is secretly to stab each other in the back- and we all know it. Social atomization is a rational response to living in a world where even your own kith and kin are almost guaranteed to betray you for negligible gains. We have reached a point where there is no reason for individuals to care about the effect of their actions on other people around them. Throughout most of history, people stopped acting out on their innermost desires for vengeance due to their concern about how society might perceive them. While that was rational in eras where at least a few people cared about you and would stand behind you, that is no longer the case.

The hope that restraint would be rewarded in this life, or the mythical next, is gone.

I would recommend that you read a series of articles (13 to date) tagged Hello from the Underclass at gawker.com about the personal stories of unemployed people in the USA. While that site is famous for tabloid type news and stories, this series about the chronically unemployed is probably one of the better attempts at serious journalism. One of the unspoken but recurring themes in the series is that many people never expected to end up like that or be treated by society and society as worthless pariahs. Almost all of these people are articulated, educated, with decent incomes and lifestyles for many years to decades and still ended up as virtual untouchables with no hope for the future.

A couple of years of chronic instability and utter neglect/abuse from people and institutions they believed in made them see the world in a very different light.

While such chronic instability and material deprivation is not new, its combination with an absence of a social support network is unprecedented. Furthermore, people are not capable of normalizing their condition by believing in the old bullshit.. I mean religion. It certainly does not help that a low birth rate greatly reduces the number of new suckers to use, abuse and exploit. Consequently a rapidly increasing number of people have become ‘free agents’ in that they have no loyalty, obligations or consideration for anybody but themselves. Periodic and recurring stints of unemployment and social ostracization only reinforce this realization.

So why do I find ‘free agents’ so interesting?

Well.. for one they are a rapidly increasing minority in modern societies. However my interest in them is linked to how they act under stress. Historically, societies could defend themselves against disgruntled but still ‘attached agents’ through a variety of means from fake hope to lying and treachery. However the information revolution has made many of these means obsolete as it is much easier for people to see that most humans beings are crap and hope is largely a scam. Social atomization has done the rest by ensuring that people who hate society and humanity in general can do so and easily reach extremely high levels of misanthropy.

To put it another way, we now live in a world with a rapidly increasing minority of people who are highly misanthropic, extremely cynical and devoid of expectations for a better future.

It does not take a genius to figure out that such people might be interested in ways to ‘repay society’ for all the things it had done for them. Given the numbers involved and the organization of modern societies, even a small number of people who ‘repay society’ will destabilize the system- even if such repayments are asynchronous.

But how can asynchronous behaviors by a few individuals destabilize large systems? The answer to that question lies in understanding how the response of society to such behaviors greatly amplifies the effect of the primary events and will be the subject of the next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Oct 21, 2012

October 21, 2012 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Instamatic BJs: Oct 20, 2012 – Photos of hot chicks giving head digitally processed to recreate a “Kodak Instamatic” look. I thought about saying ‘Instagram’ or ‘Hipstamatic’ but decided otherwise.

More Instamatic BJs: Oct 20, 2012 – More old-time fakey pics of really hot chicks giving head.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Stats on the Anna Michelle Walters Posts: Oct 20, 2012

October 20, 2012 7 comments

Some of you might be wondering about how many people saw the self-shots of a hot teacher (Anna Michelle Walters) leaked by her ex-student/ex-lover (Justin Foster). As you might know by now, there is a minor scandal in Virginia about this “affair” and it is likely that she may have had sex with other students at that school.

While a few other sites also carried those naughty self-shots, I can only look at the data for two blogs. So here it is:

On Site 1 : 54,627 at ~ 5:00 pm EST, 20 Oct 2012 (this blog)
On Site 2 : 67,569 at ~ 5:00 pm EST, 20 Oct 2012 (nekkidcuties.com)

To date, a total of 122,196 unique IP addresses have accessed posts concerning this story on these two blogs alone. But how many saw at least one picture of her naughty bits? Since I did not put those pics on Site 1, and mainly hosted the pics at Imgur, it is possible to count the click-throughs:

From site 1: 45,546
From Site 2: 39,414

A total of 84,960 people saw the pics hosted on Imgur and over 15 thousand more saw it on Site 2. To make a long story short- more than 100,000 people saw the nekkid self-pics she (Anna Michelle Walters) sent to her ex-student and ex-lover (Justin Foster) on two sites. Given that they also hosted on other web sites, I guess that over half a million people saw them. It is fair to say that almost every person who knows her in real life has seen them by now, along with most of their circle of acquaintances.

Even 6 months from today the first page of google image search for her name alone will still have those now infamous self-shots.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs

Anna Michelle Walters and Justin Foster: Oct 17, 2012

October 17, 2012 45 comments

Occasionally I put up posts with the sole intention of getting more hits and new visitors. This one is one of them..

This story is about a hot teacher (Anna Michelle Walters) sexing up with one her playa student (Justin Foster).

A recent graduate of Cosby High School in Midlothian, Virginia, shocked an entire community by tweeting nude photos of a substitute teacher he claims he had sex with while still a student. Justin Foster told his Twitter followers yesterday afternoon that he had a “treat” for Cosby students both past and present that would be revealed later that night. After getting sufficiently “hammered,” Foster began uploading nude photos of a woman he claimed was Anna Michelle Walters, along with several text messages allegedly proving their past dalliance.

Now usually I don’t write an entire post about something like this, but then again look at Anna and Justin.

Now that I have got your attention, here is the part you guys want..

Pic 1 at imgur (Topless Selfshot)
Pic 2 at imgur (Frontal Nude)
Pic 3 at imgur (Closeup Frontal Nude)
Pic 4 at imgur (Backshot in Thong)

OR

Reposted at- Leaked Self-Shots of Anna Michelle Walters: Oct 17, 2012

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

NSFW Links: Oct 17, 2012

October 16, 2012 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Average BJs: Oct 17, 2012 – A mix of average girls giving BJs.

Floating on Water: 16 Oct, 2012 – Cuties floating on inflatables in pools.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Making Humans Disappear: 1

October 13, 2012 16 comments

As I have stated in numerous previous posts, such as this one, there is really no way to fix human problems because they are largely self-inflicted and based on modes of behaviors that are irrational. You cannot fix what does not want to be fixed, but that does not mean you should let it keep on existing. I would like to tell you that there is a magical way to separate otherwise OK people from sociopaths, drones and assholes. But there isn’t such a method or algorithm nor could you implement any such strategy on a scale large enough to reliably rid the world of such people, their kids, grand-kids etc. But there is another way to approach this problem..

Make all humans disappear… the keyword is ALL.

Now you might be skeptical about whether something like that is even possible and more importantly feasible. I mean how do you get rid of people who want to live. Would they not try to do anything to keep on living? Ironically, it is possible to use this very willingness to live at any cost to make humans extinct.

But first let us understand what methods of making human disappear won’t work. Methods based on natural disasters, energy starvation, nuclear wars, comet strikes, epidemics (natural or artificial) might destroy entire civilizations but they are unlikely to reliably cause human extinction. They are also complicated, involve too much work and have single points of failure. The other problem with such methods is that an external threat might make human beings temporarily come together and find a way around that problem.

The best way to cause human extinction is to use certain features of the human psyche, present day society and technology to make things fall apart at an ever-increasing rate.

I am certainly not the first person to wish for human extinction. However I and others who wish that today have some advantages over those who wished something similar even 30 years ago. We now have many of the enabling conditions and technology to complete the job.

Those enabling conditions and technologies are:

1. A globalized and connected world where news, ideas and events spread in ways that are beyond the control of anybody. In previous eras, even the utter collapse of one civilization would often not transmit to another on a different continent. Today we can daisy-chain the whole process and use one node to amplify the damage at another node (and so on) till the whole thing comes apart.

2. In previous eras people could not act on their worst impulses because they were part of some social structure or order around them. Today, we have a rapidly increasing number of people who have no real connection to the society around them nor any hope of benefiting from playing by the rules- and they know it.

3. Our societies, in-person behaviors, customs and expectations are still based in a world that used to exist. We still act as if the social changes and technological possibilities which have occurred over the last few decades had no real impact on who we are. While living in a previous era can work for some time, the shift underlying realities will ultimately interrupt the trip.

4. We have run out the spare human beings! In previous eras, it was possible to cover all sorts of horrible things and mistakes with a new crop of naive humans. Today, you can no longer do that and that affects the amount of bullshit a society can get away with before experiencing irreversible collapse.

5. Newer technological possibilities and older socio-economic mores have made it easier to put some space between us and the damage we cause. Today a billionaire, celebrity, CEO, manager, lawyer, bureaucrat or doctor can cause far more damage without a realistic threat of immediate retribution. Since human beings, especially the ‘clever’ ones, are the most short sighted- the lack of immediate retribution can make people cause far more damage than they had originally intended.

It is relatively easy to make people do something that can start a whole series of secondary and tertiary events whose eventual impact is far more than the primary event.

But how can one translate that into initiating a process which will eventually, but certainly, destroy all humans. Now I fully understand that almost nobody would willingly take part in something along those lines- if they saw it like that. But why advertise it as such? I am not suggesting that lying is the way forward, but what if you presented it in a way that appealed to the needs (rational/irrational) and ego of human beings.

Almost every human being desire to keep on living is linked to some combination of external validation, social acceptance, respect from others, power over others, ability to harm others, make others suffer etc.

Now all of these reasons are not truly rational- even at our current level of technology and knowledge. But then again, human beings are not rational. This is especially true for those who pretend to be “intelligent”, “rational” and “objective”. A truly rational human would spend all of their waking hours trying to get away from the slow-motion disaster also known as the rest of humanity. Therefore I do not expect the very few truly rational human beings will care about what I am talking about- one way or the other.

My idea relies on using the consequences of social atomization and mass personal communication mixed in with simple probability to create a set of circumstances that will elicit a disproportionate and increasingly counterproductive reaction from the rest of people. Fortunately developments within the last two centuries, and especially the last few decades, have made my task much easier than it would otherwise have been.

In the next part of this series, I shall discuss the single most important social phenomena that will allow my vision to prevail- the rise of the ‘free agent’.

What do you think? Comments?

Babylon 5: Z’ha’dum goes Boom

October 12, 2012 5 comments

My favorite scene from this late-90s TV show is its season 3 cliffhanger.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Video

Effects of Social Atomization on the So-Called “Elites”

October 11, 2012 15 comments

My previous posts on social atomization focus on its large-scale effects on society. But what about the so-called “elites”? Are they not adversely affected by social atomization? Or does it benefit them to the detriment of others?

I believe that the so-called “elites” do suffer the consequences of social atomization, in more ways than one. However their position in society allows them to temporarily insulate themselves from its worse effects- without changing the final outcome.

Let me start by pointing out two odd and interlinked features of present-day “elites” all around the world. Unlike their predecessors throughout recorded human history, they have very few kids and they work even when doing so is not essential and damaging to their ability to enjoy life. The kings, emperors, warlords, high priests, landowners and rich merchants of previous eras used their ill-gotten resources to eat, drink, fornicate and party till they dropped. Today their equivalents go to great lengths to keep on “working hard” and generally act and look like faceless rich drones. Most of the “elites” today are involved in shitty low-sex marriages and generally under the thumb of one or a series of aging miserable cunts who drain their money and sap their happiness. Few of them have more than a kid or two, who generally turns out to be mediocre at best.

So how do you explain people worth billions of dollars living such pathetic lives, when they have the resources to do have much better lives?

The sophists among you might claim that they choose this pathetic lifestyle because it is morally superior, indicative of ‘high IQ’ or long-term priorities. However “elites” throughout human history have always been opportunistic sociopaths who got lucky, and the same is true today. Nor is it due to the present being a “meritocracy” since merit plays a minor role in determining your “place” in society. Furthermore, humans beings don’t live forever so anything that occurs after your death is inconsequential. In my opinion, the progressively odd behavior of “elites” over the last 200 years cannot be explained by invoking conventional explanations such as the ones given above.

I believe that the direct and indirect effects of social atomization are behind the increasingly peculiar behavior and lifestyle choices of the so-called “elites”.

So how did I come up with this explanation? What drove me to associate social atomization with anhedonic behavior? The answer lies in first being honest about what motivates people as opposed to what makes them happy. While we like to believe that the same factors which motivate people also make them happy- that is often not the case. Fear of status loss, fear of material loss, desire to dominate and hurt others are often the strongest motivators. However going down that road takes you away from any chance at achieving any worthwhile degree of happiness or satisfaction with your life. Some morons might see happiness and satisfaction as the desires of an “inferior” and “unambitious” mind, yet they cannot explain the self-utility of a “hard workers” effort after his death.

Any conscious action which lacks self-utility is well.. stupid. If it does not make you happier, “better off” or keep you alive till the next realistic chance at escape- why are you doing it?

Which brings us the question of why “elites” live increasingly pleasure-less lives. To understand the reasons behind this change one has to first appreciate how “elites” become “elites”. In the past, people became “elites” because they were born to the right parents at the right time. They justified their position in society by claiming that they descended from gods or were chosen by gods- and used religion and greedy priests to support their claims. Those who challenged them were usually murdered- though sometimes the challengers murdered the previous “elites” and replaced them. To put it another way, their position in society could not survive even a marginally literate populace with a basic level of critical thinking. Which is why the enlightenment and the effects of the industrial revolution made it hard for the old “elites” to remain relevant, let alone command power or respect. They were ultimately replaced by the new “elites” who justified their position in society by claiming “merit”. While there was some truth to that claim, it did not justify the level of social inequality that exists and used to exist. However there was another little noticed side effect of this shift- loss of social cohesion among the “elite”.

Throughout history “elites” have defended their power through collusion with people related to them. Doing so was very easy in previous eras when you could fill all the important posts in your fiefdom with your progeny and relatives. But it is much harder to pull that off today because intense competition and the lack of good extended family protection means that conventional nepotism will almost certainly cause loss of status, money and dimunition of the ability to dominate/hurt others.

Today people have to work hard or put up a convincing appearance of hard work to justify their “elite” status- even if doing so is a losing proposition at multiple levels.

Therefore they cannot do stuff that would actually make them happy. Nor can they allow other “elites”, with whom they don’t share any deep personal bond, to do something that would make them happy. The “elites” now have more in common with a bunch of brain-damaged dogs who hate each other and are constantly fighting each other in a conflict that no one can win. Yet, they would rather prefer to keep on fighting over who is top dog than come to some form of agreement and live in relative peace and enjoy life- because nobody can trust nobody else. Even the “elites” are too atomized to act as a coherent entity.

Consequently they spend all their waking hours on posturing and fighting an unending war, rather than enjoying a relaxing and luxurious life. It does not take a genius to figure out why such people also have few, or often no, kids. On the bright side, social atomization has finally made the lives of the “elites” almost as miserable as the people they dominate and abuse every single day.

What do you think? Comments?

An Observation about “American Pie: Reunion” (2012)

October 6, 2012 6 comments

One of the more peculiar aspects of the american movie production system is that it can create very good products at the periphery of mainstream cinema. So while the average well-funded “blockbuster” is usually very formulaic and predictable, a lot of the sleeper hits and cult classics are not. I would argue that the innovativeness of american cinema is largely based on its ability to incorporate the lessons learned from atypical and non-formulaic hits into more mainstream productions. While I can go about which blockbusters were influenced by far more modest precursors- that is a topic best reserved for another post. This post is about how movies or movie series that became unexpected hits often end up telling us far more about the society we live in than they were intended to.

I am sure that almost every one of you has seen at least one movie in the infamous American Pie Series. However many of you might not know that the original American Pie (1999) was a low-budget shot in the dark. Indeed, most people involved in making and acting in that movie thought that it was unlikely to recover its 11 million $ budget let alone make a huge profit, start a series and jump-start the careers of many actors.

So why was the original movie and most of its major sequels so successful?

There are those who attribute the success to gross-out humor and appealing to teenage male sensibilities. However that does not explain why many other movies with similar themes and even raunchier story lines have bombed. I believe that the success of the original movie in that series (and the subsequent major sequels) is largely due to the fact the characters in that movie are far more realistic than many other similarly themed movies. Furthermore, the story lines were far closer to reality than “professional” movie critics realized.

That movie series (major sequels only) is a fairly accurate representation of the behavior, trends and attitudes of the children of white upper-middle class baby boomers over the last 13-odd years. Whether it is girls in high school controlling who gets sex, how teenagers define virginity, how long -distance relationships work or don’t work, how over the hill middle-aged women use sex with much younger guys to feel validated, using pseudo-lesbianism to get attention, awkward hookups and so on. It also showed the main characters going to good universities, working hard, trying to get decent jobs.. in other words- doing what was expected of them as they tried to join the upper-middle class as “functional adults”.

So let us turn our attention to the latest movie in that series- American Pie: Reunion (2012). Once again , it distinguishes itself from the formulaic Hollywood movie sequel by being pretty realistic. For one, neither of the four guys are happy at the beginning of the movie nor are they really happy at the end. The sappy beta ‘Jim’ character is wanking off to internet porn inspite of being married to his dream girl aka ‘band camp’ Michelle who is using a flexible shower head to get off. The intellectual Finch has a dead-end lower-management job at a big box store inspite of his intellect and education. The Kevin character is an unhappy whipped house-husband who hates what he has become. Stifler can only manage a temp job in some investment firm inspite of his family connections. Even Oz who now has the model girlfriend is less than happy with his life.

I believe that the movie accurately depicts what has happened to children of upper-middle class baby boomers. While their parents had opportunities to settle down into an acceptable and reasonably stable existence with some correlation to their ability, their kids just do not have the jobs and careers that they rightfully expected. Note that only ‘Jim’ has a somewhat stable and conventional job and only he has the one child among his four high-school friends- even though they are all in their early 30s. The rest have had some combination of short and long-term relationships with no desire to have kids. Did I mention that the movie does not have an “all problems are solved and everybody is happy” ending.

None of them wants to “grow up”, “man up” or “take one for family”.

I believe that it accurately represents the general outlook and behavior of the male children of affluent baby boomers. Most have no desire to slave away like their fathers, especially given that the previous set of rewards for such behavior are gone. Most have seen divorces and their ugly aftermath and therefore have little interest in marriage or committed long-term relationships. Most can only get jobs that are crappy, unstable or pay significantly less than they had been implicitly promised. Even the most traditional in that age group have significant distrust and cynicism about the women- including those in their lives.

Most men in that age and socio-economic group just don’t see themselves as having a stake in the future and act accordingly.

What do you think? Comments?

More Tween Halloween Costumes

October 5, 2012 12 comments

In light of the popularity of my previous post on this subject, I decided to find out if the costume shown in that post was an aberration or a trend. It appears that the overall trend in halloween costumes is towards costumes such as these..

I found all of the pictures in this post by simply image-googling “tween halloween costume girls”. Furthermore, all of them are from websites that sold the depicted costumes.

Yes, costumes such as the ones shown below are advertised and sold in well-known online stores. Since people rarely make and sell something that nobody wants, we must assume that somebody is buying them. Given the sizes they are available in- it is unlikely that men or most women can fit into them.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, LOL

A Sign of Our Times: Goldilocks Tween Costume

October 4, 2012 16 comments

I recently came across a post on some ‘mom site’ complaining about slutty teen/tween Halloween costumes. While such complaints are heard every year, one particular costume mentioned in that post caught my attention.

In case you don’t believe me, just google “goldilocks tween costume” and you can see that many retailers are selling this item in teen sizes for about 35-50$ a piece. While some of you might see this as yet more evidence that we are going to hell, I prefer to see this as proof of the invisible hand of the marketplace.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, Musings

Moderate Popularity Gets More Pussy Than High Income

October 3, 2012 35 comments

Let me start this post by asking you a question whose answer has a lot of relevance to the world we live in today.

Who gets more pussy- The guy who plays guitar in a generic cover band or the chief of neurosurgery at the local university hospital? The neighborhood drug dealer or a ivy-league educated junior partner at some ‘prestigious’ law firm?

As you might have guessed, the guitar player in a generic cover band or neighborhood drug dealer will almost always score way more, and much better, pussy than some autistic losers trying to show off their supposed importance and “high IQ” at some hospital or law firm. I can bet you that the musician and drug dealer are also far more likely to have kids and actually enjoy life than the losers who spend their best years slaving away for bigger (and equally unsuccessful) assholes for the chance of, one day, replacing them.

There are those who say that people who go into vocations such as medicine, law, finance etc are “too special” to go with the “baser instincts”. So why are they going into those vocations anyway? Do you really think that the vast majority of people who become physicians are interested in anything beyond money? Very few people become lawyers and financiers because of genuine interest or altruism. It is about the ‘protected’ money and the supposed power that comes with those jobs.

But what is all that money good for? What can it buy you?

The unpleasant reality is that the amount of money made by these autistic little-dicked losers cannot buy them what they really want. They will always be ‘that guy’ who some woman settles for after she has lost her looks and can no longer compete with younger versions of herself. However unlike previous eras, she is very likely to get bored and divorce the ‘high IQ’ loser and take away as much of his money as the system lets her get away with. She will also use the kids (if any) as emotional and legal weapons to make the loser’s life miserable? Even if they stay together, she will become increasingly sexually distant and unavailable. She will decide how to live and spend his money while the ‘high IQ” loser will follow the ugly aging cunt like a dog follows a hobo- though hobos are usually far better human beings than most women.

Some of you might say that since I buy sex from escorts, I should not criticize ‘high IQ’ losers who want lots of money. So let me be clear about one thing- it is not about the money but what you USE it for. If those ‘high IQ’ loser bought lost of sex-time with hot chicks like I do, that would be fine and very rational.

But they don’t do that!

They spend almost all of their money trying to fulfill social expectations which they hope will make them attractive to women as potential mates and the father of their children. That includes wearing the “right” clothes, buying the “right” cars, living in the “right” zipcode, hanging around with the “right” people, attending the “right” social events and expressing the “right” opinions. All of this to get something that the struggling musician and semi-popular drug dealer can get for a far lower cost, or none at all.

The tragically funny part of this story is that the washed up cock-hoppers who finally let these ‘high IQ’ losers put their tiny dick into their shriveled cunt are in for the money. They have no real sexual interest in their autistic worshipers and will cheat on him or dump his ass for a shot at sex with a musician or drug dealer.

What do you think? Comments?