While drinking some coffee at Starbucks today I overheard the same basic conversation between two sets of women. It went something like this:
Women A: My friend X is waiting for her boyfriend Y to pop the question. They have been a couple for ‘n’ years.. yada yada
Women B: So when do you think he will do it? My friend’s boyfriend Y1 popped her(X1) the question ‘m’ months ago when they were at ‘insert vacation destination’.
Now, I should be upfront that my views on the institution of marriage have always been a bit cynical. However some aspects of that institution are more bizarre and irrational than others.
Consider the commonly accepted custom that the guy should propose to the girl- preferably under some cheesy circumstances. We have all seen elaborate marriage proposals (both creative and cringe-worthy), especially in the era of YouTube and Social Media. While I have no interest in preventing people from making fools of themselves, one question about the whole concept of marriage proposals has always bothered me.
What is the logic behind a guy creatively begging some woman to marry him, when doing so puts him at a permanent disadvantage? Isn’t that a lot like dreaming up a creative way to get a painful and chronic disease?
Throughout human history, marriage has been the shortest route to dull and increasingly infrequent sex with an aging harpy. Today, it is also the fastest way to lose money and assets though child-support and alimony. Moreover, it is no longer an institution that offers men any real support or proof of achievement as they become old.
Marriage, as it exists today, is an institution devoted to transferring money and resources from gullible men to women without even the pretense of benefiting men in any shape or form.
However, we still keep on seeing creative marriage proposals by guys to women who has ridden dozens of cocks before ‘settling’ for them. A majority of those guys also, still, believe that marrying the woman they are proposing to will partially validate the supposed benefits of getting married. In contrast, women are interested in getting married because a] they are hitting the ‘wall’, b] her other friends have ‘done it’ and c] she requires a larger income to indulge her material appetite.
If we strip away the sentimentality and bullshit from modern marriage, one thing becomes painfully obvious. There is no real advantage or gain for a man in marrying a woman he is already fucking. Even if the couple break up, the guy can always find another woman to fuck or just pay for sex by the hour. Marriage, on the other hand, makes him financially and socially vulnerable- even if the couple stay together. The woman, on the other hand, benefits immensely from marriage because it gives her more resources and leverage over the man even as her physical appeal fades into obscurity. It is therefore the woman who really needs and benefits from the institution of marriage.
The customs around marriage are, however, still grounded in the belief that it is men who require marriage more than the women.
While there may have been some truth to this belief in the era before the sexual revolution, modern contraception and feminism; that is no longer the case. Today sexual access to willing women is rather inexpensive if you can convince them that you are a cool player. Furthermore the mainstreaming of safe and high-quality paid sex in most developed countries means that even average guys can get amazing sex at much lower per-fuck rates than marriage while simultaneously avoiding long-term commitments.
I would add my observation that women have no problem sexually servicing a ‘unpredictable, ‘violent’, ‘mysterious’ or ‘in-demand’ guy for years without any offer of marriage. They will however threaten the caring, responsible, bland and ‘educated’ guy with ultimatums for ‘popping the question’.
What do you think? Comments?
Eliminating private gun ownership in the USA has been a perpetual wet-dream of leftist totalitarians for some time now. These scumbags try to use every gun-related incident, however minor or not so minor, to push that dream. Why has it not worked?
The short answer to that question is- for all their faults, most gun-owning americans recognize that gun-control is not about reducing deaths by guns. It is about pulling off a peculiar type of power grab which any sane person would rightfully resent and resist.
So what do I mean by ‘gun control is not about reducing death by guns’?
Let me explain.. You might have heard or read apologists and stooges for the ‘gun control’ movement use any and every media forum to push their ’cause’ under the guise of reducing ‘harm’ by guns. While I am a strong supporter of reducing harm in many other areas, from legalizing drugs and prostitution, the case for reducing ‘harm’ by banning guns strikes me as rather irrational.
Firstly- banning or restricting anything does not reduce the ‘harm’ from it.
If that were not so, banning alcohol production should have reduced the harm caused by it- however the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s suggests otherwise. Prohibition merely destroyed a thriving industrial sector and funneled its revenues into sub-standard and expensive stuff which supported the biggest expansion of organised crime in the history of the USA. I would go so far as to say that the Mafia and (largely corrupt) cops of that era were the principal beneficiary of alcohol prohibition. It did not reduce crime nor the total number of deaths from alcohol consumption. It also made ‘law-breakers’ out of a significant percentage of the american population thereby reducing their respect for other laws passed and enforced by the system. The ‘war on drugs’ has also been a similar failure, though some older white people still support it because it preferentially destroyed the lives of black men. Today it is easier to buy a joint, a few lines of cocaine or vicodin pills than it is to buy a bottle of vodka- especially if you are “underage”. Moreover, much of the early criminality associated with drug trafficking has burnt out to the point that it is a pretty mature and established industry in the USA.
Secondly- people will pay for something that they need.
While advertising can help sell useless crap for some time, the long-term demand for any product is largely determined by real needs. While ‘beanie babies’ were at once highly collectible items, they are no longer so. However people still fill up their cars with about the same amount of gasoline they used to in the mid-1990s. While guns are not as essential as gasoline for cars, they are certainly far more useful than stuffed toys. Furthermore they require a minimal amount of maintenance and usage unlike many other products. Guns that were made many decades ago are still functional, and will be so for decades more. The technology to make decent quality guns is also available all over the world and is hard to separate from normal everyday usage of such technology. It therefore goes without saying that any legal ban or restriction on guns in the USA might not actually affect the ability to acquire guns by those who need it and don’t care about being a law-abiding slave.. I mean “citizen”.
Thirdly- ‘gun control’ does not address the real issues behind gun violence in the USA.
The scam of ‘gun control’ does not address the real and rather unpleasant reasons behind the uniquely high rates of gun-related homicide in america. These disingenuous fucktards pushing for ‘gun control’ don’t seem to care about what makes people in the USA so willing to kill other people. While bad and failed policies such as continuing the failed ‘war on drugs’ and excessive rates of incarceration and dehumanization of non-whites is part of the problem- the root goes much deeper. It concerns how Americans see and treat each others, regardless of race or class.
The USA combines the worst elements of two different types of dytopias. On one hand, it has levels of socio-economic inequality and a general disregard for the lives of other people that approaches (or exceeds) that seen in third-world banana republics. On the other hand, it has levels of social atomization similar to scandinavian countries. It is this combination of dysfunctions that creates a uniquely toxic mix.
The average poor and battered person in your typical high-inequality country (Brazil, Mexico, India or China) can expect a lot of assistance and support from their family and friends. The family and peer support available in such systems in those countries often mitigates the suffering inflicted by the larger system and prevents most people from going off track or becoming highly misanthropic. Atomized societies such as your typical west-european country handle the same basic problem through generous social welfare programs, excellent subsidized healthcare, excellent public infrastructure, subsidized education and housing etc.
Both types of societies try to stop people from reaching a point where they lose all hope in, and connections, to the society at large.
The american system is unique in that has very high levels of inequality without any mechanisms (social or state funded) to protect vulnerable people. Americans, especially whites, take great pleasure in the sufferings of even poorer and vulnerable people. Being a ‘winner’ in american society is largely determined by who you are born to rather than your actual capabilities or willingness to work hard, play by the rules etc.
But if that is the case- why didn’t things go to hell a hundred, or even fifty, years ago?
Here is why.. The long and almost continuous economic expansion of the USA since its beginning prevented the buildup of excessive socio-economic pressure for almost two centuries. While the overall system was grossly unfair, the economic expansion created enough new opportunities to occupy and even reward the disgruntled. People started to believe that a brighter future was around the corner- if they only waited a bit longer. This safety valve also allowed the USA to ignore the needs of its most vulnerable citizens in a manner that the UK, Germany or Russia could not get away with.
The american economic expansion slowed in the 1970s and stopped by the mid-1980s. Most economic growth since then has been largely appropriated by the top 1% of american society leaving the rest to fend for themselves. While it was initially possible to keep people somewhat happy and content by blowing ever larger economic bubbles, that option appears to have reached its end. Then there is the issue of people having fewer or no kids and a concurrent fall in the numbers of those who move to the USA. A substantial reduction in the number and percentages of new suckers combined with the acceleration of income concentration at the top end of society without the safety valve of a new frontier (real or imagined) has unmasked the underlying problems with the american way of doing things.
The screwing of average americans was once restricted to blacks, visible minorities and a few poor whites. Beginning in the 1980s, blue-collar whites joined that list and that is why workplace shootings started in that decade. Initially White-collared morons thought they were insulated from these changes because of their ‘education’ and for a while it appeared to be the case. However that illusion has been slowly eroded over the course of the last 10-12 years. It is therefore no surprise that the younger members of the white-collared group are increasingly taking out their frustrations and disenchantment in the easiest way they can. We should also not forget that prostitution in the USA is too expensive and subject to a lot of arbritrary law enforcement- unlike almost every other developed country.
A lot of young, smart and capable men have realized that they no trustworthy and dependable relationships or friendships, no pleasurable physical contact (even paid), no reciprocal social contract and no ‘better’ future to look forward to in the current setup. Most stop playing the old game, usually after a series of bad experiences, and slowly disengage from an increasingly ubalanced and unstable society. Some adopt alternate life trajectories (the rise of ‘game’, MGTOW etc) rather than go down an obviously fruitless path. A minority decide to kill a few other people before killing themselves.
Guns are just the most easily available means to kill other people in the USA. Banning or restricting them will just make those who want to kill use other methods- some of which might cause a far higher body count per incident than semi-auto guns.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
POV BJs: Dec 25, 2012 – Average-ish chicks playing the skin flute.
More POV BJs: Dec 25, 2012 – More average-ish chicks giving head.
Even More POV BJs: Dec 25, 2012 – Even more chicks sucking the meat lollipop.
OK.. guess why I put up this music video. The first few spoken lines are a dead giveaway.
“He was a sweet child, good birth weight, was quiet and kept to himself”.
“this world rejects me, this world threw me away, this world never gave me a chance, this world gonna have to pay
life don’t believe in your institutions, i did what you want me to, like the cancer in your system, i’ve got a little suprise for you”
“I look down at where you’re standing, Flock of sheep out on display, With all your lives piled up around you, I can take it all away.”
In a previous post from just over a year ago (How iOS and Android Will Affect PC Evolution) I wrote about how the superior user experience of mobile computing devices was changing consumer expectations about personal computing. Since then even more powerful mobile CPUs and GPUs have been introduced. Mobile operating systems have also become more capable without losing much (if any) of their usability advantages over the ones currently running on laptops and desktops.
A couple of recent experiences have only reinforced my belief that the operating systems of personal computers in the near future will increasingly resemble (and be derived) from their mobile counterparts. I also believe that Android, not iOS, is likely to be the biggest future threat to Windows. So how did I come to this conclusion? Let me start by describing a couple of the above mentioned experiences.
My first experience came about recently when I was trying out some laptops and tablets at the local branch of a well know chain store. After trying out a few demo laptops preloaded with Window 8, including some very nice ones with SSDs, I passed by a display with Android tablets and decided to try them too. One of the units was a newer Transformer tablet running Android 4.1. I tried performing a variety of common actions from opening large and complex websites on the browser, checking the mobile office suite etc. I was however struck by one thing.
The Android 4.1-running Transformer ‘tablet-top’ blew the Windows 8- running laptops out of the water in many areas ranging from the speed of cold bootup to the responsiveness and functionality of applications and the OS in general. While the construction quality of the Windows 8 laptops was better than the Asus ‘tablet-top’ there was no doubt in my mind that the later offered a superior personal computing experience.
My next epiphany was the result of trying out the ‘mobile’ versions of a few specialized scientific software that I have used for many years. While the quality and features of such mobile versions used to be rather mediocre and limited- as late as last year, that is no longer the case. The iOS and Android versions of these applications now approach or exceed the features of 4-5 year old desktop versions of the same. They also have almost all of the commonly used features and functionalities found in their desktop conterparts.
It does not take a genius to realize that the capabilities of the CPUs and operating systems of mobile devices are only going to improve- at least in the next few years. Even today, mobile devices provide a superior user experience for performing common tasks such as surfing the web, checking emails, looking at content, checking social media feeds etc. Now specialized software applications are also getting into the act. It is only a matter of time before someone starts building full-fledged laptops with ARM-based CPUs and a mobile-derived operating system.
So who will be the winner in this computing expansion/shift- as far as current contenders are concerned?
While iOS is the oldest, most well-known and well-designed mobile operating system- it is owned by Apple. Given the short-term focus and lack of imagination that characterizes senior corporate management, it is unlikely that Apple will make that leap. In any case, the lucrativeness of the current and future sales of their mobile devices might make them averse to taking another big leap- especially since Steve Jobs passed away. While features of iOS will continue to trickle into OSX and its successor, I would be very surprised if they made any truly revolutionary changes- even though iOS and OSX are not that far apart.
Moving on to Microsoft, my experience with Windows 8 (on even Intel i7-CPU containing laptops) suggest that the company has much to learn about building uncluttered, responsive and user-friendly mobile operating systems. While they have concentrated on reproducing (and even surpassing) the visual effects of iOS and Android, the interface and user-friendliness of their OS and the applications running on it leaves much to be desired. There is no point in creating a mobile version of office applications if you don’t carefully think through what your users use and don’t use. Shoehorning a simplified-looking version of your desktop software onto a mobile platform is a recipe for losing users. Similarly creating an operating-system without well thought out controls and consistent behavior does help your case either- a lesson that Android learned the hard way.
Which leaves us with Google’s Android.. Now I an aware that it too has had its own issues in the past. However Android has grown past them and the latest 2 versions are clearly better than other mobile OSes as far as intrinsic capabilities and potential for expansion are concerned. Apart from it being free and open-source (hackable), the diversity of applications available for it ensure that geek-driven expansion of its abilities will be much faster than the much more tightly controlled iOS. I believe that the future personal computing OS is most likely to be derived from Android. And yes, I am aware that Google is also trying to sell ‘Chrome OS’ Laptops and Netbooks- without much success.
Let me be also clear about one thing- I do not expect the shift from Windows type OSes to Android type OSes to be sudden or complete. Microsoft will probably keep on selling current and future versions of Windows as long as they run legacy applications- especially important for their businesses clientele. I also do not expect Google to openly and aggressively challenge Microsoft for domination of the personal computing market. The change will come from some medium-sized manufacturers/assemblers of mobile devices or laptops tinkering around existing hardware to produce that one ‘hit’ which will make them rich and famous. While most of such attempts will fail, a few that will succeed and inspire better copies by more well-known manufacturers who will then push it as their own. I do not expect the process to be smooth and predictable- but it is very likely to occur within the next 3-4 years.
What do you think? Comments?
In a previous post (Cults, Religions and Ideologies Merely Unmask Human Nature), I asked why remarkably similar organized religion-type ideologies arose across different cultures and in all historical eras. Towards the end of that post I said..
Maybe the default mental settings for a majority of human beings are very different from what we want to believe. Maybe most human beings are NOT thoughtful and reasonable creatures with any hard-wired concepts of what we call ‘humanity’. Maybe most humans are more like poisonous and invasive weeds than sentient apes who might evolve into something “better”. Maybe most humans, especially the so-called ‘high IQ’ morons, are actually incapable of rational thinking given that they expend their “intellect” into creating newer scams to do steal, abuse and kill others rather than elevating their own capabilities.
Most people tend to see humans as either ‘fallen angels’ or ‘risen apes’. I propose a third view, namely that humans (or at least the vast majority of them irrespective of intelligence) have more in common with poisonous and invasive weeds bent on choking and killing each other than anything that approaches sentient creatures. While I do not dispute that humans posses some degree of sentience and the ability to reason, any alien intelligence studying humans would correctly deduce that there is very little in human history or the present that suggests anything beyond a very limited use of those faculties.
It is especially ironic that the very humans who consider themselves ‘high IQ’ possess the most regressive and zero-sum ‘minds’ and exhibit the most bizarrely retrograde behaviors.
So what is the basis for my claim that those with ‘High IQ’ are the most regressive and parasitic humans. One of my older posts (What the Behavior of Physicians, Academics and Lawyers Says About IQ) talks about this at some length. The gist of my argument is that ‘high IQ’ people are selfish shysters who display extreme conformism and lie with every breath while slavishly worshiping tradition. They have no interest in any innovation that does further their cancerous motivations. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself- why didn’t all the struggles, wars, genocides and other changes in the entire history of human civilization not improve the life of the average person save the last hundred-odd years. I mean.. why did not all the empire building, agriculture, slavery, torture, murder and genocides throughout human history improve the lives of most people- even those who did all those things.
Isn’t that a lot of effort for essentially no gain?
The more delusional and ‘educated’ might say something about ‘thermodynamics’ and ‘availability of technology’. So let us dissect the argument that it was circumstances and not the nature of humans which led to a zero-sum world view. Once again, an older post by me (Why didn’t the Industrial Revolution start Earlier?) tackles this question and concludes with..
Maybe civilization is not about making things better for most people. Maybe it is about making things worse for most people. Maybe civilization is about impoverishing, killing, starving, abusing and torturing others. Maybe it is about depriving people of happiness and human decency. Maybe civilization, as we know it, is about a few getting lucky and screwing others just to feel a bit better about their own pathetic lives.
Let me give you one easy to understand example that illustrates my point. The western roman empire at its peak (100-200 AD) had the minds, size, organisational infrastructure and technological know-how to start the age of “enlightenment and discovery”. They possessed the necessary know-how to build concrete structures, centrally heated buildings and swimming pools, glass making and had a good grasp on mechanics and rudimentary chemistry which could have easily allowed them to build telescopes, microscopes, print books, build better cities, mine and burn coal, build machines that could replace or at least supplemented slave labor.
But did they do any of those things? No.. they just went on doing what they had done before. It is as if they could not imagine a world that was better than their own. Some of you might see this as cultural inertia and institutional rigidity- but was that really the case. The Romans certainly had no problem with changing emperors who lost popularity through assassinations nor did they have qualms about assimilating new religious ideas- so why were ideas on improving human existence so few and far between? Can you seriously say that no person in the roman empire ever considered the possibility of microscopic life-forms causing infectious diseases, methods to mass produce books or mine coal on a large scale? In contrast to that- new ideas about invisible buddies (new gods), new ways to kill and enslave other people (fight wars) and steal from others (unfair laws) found willing and enthusiastic audiences.
Remember that this occurred in an era when the effects of infectious diseases, poor sanitation and energy poverty dominated the lives of most people and affected even emperors. Yet the roman people and their leaders spent a lot of effort in creating bigger gladiatorial spectacles, building bigger arenas, bigger palaces, bigger walls, fighting bigger wars and generally expending their effort into things which did not improve their lives. It was if they were willing to do anything and everything as long as it did not make their lives better. But why? Is human stupidity, shortsightedness and the inertia of tradition sufficient to explain this behavior? In my opinion, the historical record of human civilization only makes sense if a significant majority of people are functionally closer to mindless poisonous and invasive weeds than sentient apes.
Cults, religions and ideologies should therefore be seen as pathetic justifications and self-rationalizations for acting like poisonous and invasive weeds.
The pseudo-rationalizations provided by belief systems are great for people who are too cowardly or somewhat ashamed to act as they really want to. Plus people are narcissistic and want to be seen as doing the ‘right’ thing even when they are not. Believing in ideological bullshit allows people to pretend that killing and robbing ‘unbelievers’ is an act of piety performed by a ‘good person’ rather than what it really is. It allows people following ‘orders’ to commit horrible acts and still maintain their self-image as decent ‘law-abiding’ human beings.
Some of you might still think that is possible to reason with people who have uncritical faith in any belief system. I believe that is not possible and possibly counterproductive since these people REQUIRE those belief systems to justify their sad and pathetic existence. The only way to really stop such people (and their progeny) is to make them disappear- forever.
What do you think? Comments?
In one of my previous posts (What the Mental Image of ‘God’ says about the Human Mind) , I said the following..
The image of ‘god/s’ in each religious belief systems is therefore really a projection of the deepest desires of those who profess faith in that particular system.
The next logical question then is- What does that say about those who do things because they are trying to be good members of their cult, religion or ideology? I hope you realize that there is no basic difference between a cult, religion and ideology. Doing something questionable for a group that professes belief in Xenu, Kolob, the ‘God’ in the Old Testament, the Son of God, Allah or Mother Earth are functionally equivalent and tell us more about the true nature of the human ‘mind’ rather than anything about those fictional entities. Similarly a person who does things because they believe in Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Feminism, Scientists, Experts or any other -ism is functionally identical to one who does it for a more traditional god.
So what do the more feverent followers of any religious ideology do when they are not trying to show each other that they are the ‘bestest’ followers of the one true word of ‘god’ from its ‘final’ prophet? Guess…
They are busy using their professed faith to lie, steal, abuse, torture and kill other people. Some people think that modern cults like Scientology are somehow more evil than traditional religions like Christianity and Islam. However even a cursory reading of history suggests otherwise. I would highly recommend you to read books that describe various versions of what the ‘faithful’ Catholic Spanish did to the ‘heathen’ indigenous people of the Caribbean, South and Central America. I am talking actual torture, executions, rape, slavery etc- not just all the diseases they brought with them to the Americas. Even the versions written by semi-sympathetic Spanish priests make the genocides carried out by third Reich look rather tame. Once they could find no more gold and silver, they simply enslaved whoever was still alive and have continued to exploit them. Even Stalin’s genocides ultimately made things a bit better than before (compare Russia in 1920 to Russia in 1950). The same cannot be said about the Portuguese-Spanish genocides in Mesoamerica where things never really got better until late in the 20th century.
Let us face it- the Portuguese and Spanish conquistadors were into stealing gold, killing others and raping women. They just justified their behavior through increasingly peculiar interpretation of religions- because even the biggest sociopath likes to believe that he or she is a ‘good’ person.
Then there is the whole issue about what actually drove the spread of Islam in the early middle ages. While modern apologists would like you to believe that they were trying to spread their version of the ‘good word’ the historical facts say otherwise. Every single expansion of Islam was driven by the need for more Gold, Slaves and Pussy. Accounts of events by Muslim scholar, kings and generals show they were obsessed with how much loot was collected, how many ‘unbelievers’ were killed and how many slaves and women were captured. Spreading their religion was really low on their list of priorities and was frequently an afterthought. Some might say that they were merely following the example of the founder of that religion- and I would agree.
It is obvious that Islam, like Catholicism, has functionally been largely a smokescreen for looting, killing and raping. I would go on to say that Protestantism was no better given the multitude of Catholic-Protestant Wars in the earlier part of the ‘Age of Enlightenment’. Similarly the Roman and Greek religions were mostly about providing justification for looting, killing and raping. Even religions that did not explicitly command their followers to fight wars against unbelievers (Hinduism, Confucian Belief Systems) were built around abusing, looting and stealing from other people. Capitalism for all its pretense of enlightenment and rationality is functionally no different from any traditional religion that provides a smokescreen for the same- as is communism which delivers some version of hell while claiming to herald the dawn of utopia.
But what does that say about the people who profess beliefs in such ideologies? What does it say about the real nature of human beings?
You might have noticed that groups as unconnected as Romans in the 2nd century BC, Arabs in the 7th Century AD and Aztecs in the 14th century AD or Capitalists in our era keep acting the same way under different ideological guises. It is therefore likely that the repeated invention of organized religious-type ideology says something rather unpleasant about the human mind. Maybe it says something that most human beings would rather not think about, let alone publicly acknowledge.
Maybe the default mental settings for a majority of human beings are very different from what we want to believe. Maybe most human beings are NOT thoughtful and reasonable creatures with any hard-wired concepts of what we call ‘humanity’. Maybe most humans are more like poisonous and invasive weeds than sentient apes who might evolve into something “better”. Maybe most humans, especially the so-called ‘high IQ’ morons, are actually incapable of rational thinking given that they expend their “intellect” into creating newer scams to do steal, abuse and kill others rather than elevating their own capabilities. Need I remind you that civilization caused a significant reduction in quality of life until the last 70 years.
What do you think? Comments?