Archive for December 27, 2012

Irrational Customs: Men Proposing to Women

December 27, 2012 29 comments

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?

Why Gun Control Is A Non-Starter in the USA

December 27, 2012 18 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?