Archive for January, 2013

So Why Aren’t the Rich and Well-Off Having Lots of Children?

January 30, 2013 42 comments

Throughout human history people have consistently tried to create ‘intellectual’ frameworks to justify their delusional and solipsistic beliefs. People seem to create and believe in such mental frameworks even when they damage, hurt and kill them. Religions, both traditional and secular, fall into that category as do all schools of philosophy and economics. Today I am going to talk about one of the more contemporary and more ‘secular’ sounding ‘intellectual’ framework used to explain the world- evolutionary psychology.

Before we go further, let us be clear about one thing. Evolution in all its forms (micro-, macro- as well as speciation) is very real and measurable. While we can certainly argue about the contribution of each sub-form of evolution to the overall process or its ability to arrive at ‘perfect’ solutions, the existence of the evolutionary process is not in question.

I however take an exception with using the idea of evolution, or a particular interpretation thereof, to justify delusional and solipsistic beliefs. Such perverse interpretations of the evolutionary process are especially common among greedy and subhuman who profess right-wing ideologies. Evolution inspired solipsistic beliefs such as the ‘survival of the fittest’ and eugenics have a long and close connection with who truly deserve a final solution. One of the more popular ‘intellectual’ justifications for ill-gotten wealth, prestige and power is that people who have them are somehow more superior, smarter or otherwise genetically better than those who were less lucky. I have attacked this idea at multiple levels in many of my previous articles and this is another one in that chain. So let us talk about evolutionary psychology especially as it concerns the mechanism through which these supposedly ‘superior’ genes spread and increase in populations- a kind of genetic Calvinism.

Given that the number of fertile progeny who reach reproductive age are the fundamental measure of success in biological evolution, let us look at the situation in contemporary societies. What are the defining characteristics of those who are having many kids today? and what about those who have fewer nor none?

If we ignore societies in the midst of civil wars or underdeveloped countries with poor life expectancy and high infant mortality, two trends dominate the demography of most contemporary societies. One- the majority of human beings live in countries where the median life expectancy is over 70 years. Two- the fertility rate in almost all countries, even those where woman had 7-9 kids barely a generation ago, is less than 3 kids per woman. However not every fertile woman in those countries have 2 or 3 kids, since an increasing number have one or none.

Some of you might see this change as merely a temporary blip in the great ‘celestial’ pattern. However an objective look at the evidence suggests otherwise. For one, there were never 7 billion plus humans alive on earth at once in an era where the whole world just happened to highly interconnected by trade and information and simultaneously technologically capable. To put it another way, we have never been here before. Contrast this to all the fiefdoms, kingdoms and empires of old which had considerable similarity to each other- even into the middle of the industrial revolution.

So, who is having more kids today? and who is having less on none? and why are they behaving that way? For starters the fertility rates among the ‘rich’ and ‘well-off’ are very low. Sure, you can find the occasional religious type who has many kids and grandkids or some attention-whore adopting kids from poverty-stricken countries. But they are just that.. the minority. The majority of people who had the (ill-gotten) financial resources to have as many kids as they wanted to are just not having them! In contrast to that, people with limited financial resources are still having kids. Why is that so?

Why aren’t the rich and well-off having lots of children?

The very low fertility of the rich and well-off is certainly not due to their altruism, decency or concern for the future of humanity. Indeed these people are some of the slimiest and most narcissistic sociopaths that have ever walked the face of the earth. Their obsession with making more money, gaining more status and abusing their power is in a class by itself. Given that CONservatives and LIEbertarians consider such people as the peak of human evolution, shouldn’t they be spreading their ‘awesome’ genes left and right? But are they? and why not?

Why does a mediocre black rapper have more kids than a well off surgeon or high-flying corporate lawyer? What about professors and scientists? How many kids does Bill Gates have? What about the guys who started Google? What about other billionaires? What about the bankers on wall street who spend every waking second thinking of new ways to fleece and fuck over humanity? Isn’t it odd that those with the resources to have tons of kids are either not interested in having them or end up with 1 or 2 kids after multiple rounds of fertility treatments? Are these people not able to comprehend evolution or the reality of their eventual mortality? What is going on?

Contrast this to the fecundity of even mediocre athletes, musicians, C-list celebrities or even your local drug dealer. Why do women want to have the kids of such men rather than educated professionals or filthy rich plutocrats? Surely, women are not dumb enough to overlook that having the kids of guys with money is a great way to live well. But women are increasingly choosing to be single mothers or have the kids of hot and popular guys while sticking some dweeby rich or well-off guy with the bill.

Why aren’t ‘high IQ’ and ‘noble ancestry’ genes making women wet and horny?

Some of you might blame ‘feminism’, ‘contraception’ and the ‘modern welfare state’ for this outcome. But are they really the major culprits behind the inability of rich and well-off men to make women wet? Would women get turned on by these guys if the situation was different? Were they ever turned on by such men?

Could it be that humans prefer to have sex and kids with other human beings rather than things that look and sometimes behave like humans?

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jan 26, 2013

January 26, 2013 5 comments

These links are NSFW.

Mouthful POV BJs: Jan 15, 2013 – That should keep them from yapping..

Sweet Cheeks: Jan 26, 2013 – Slim and curvy gals with sweet behinds.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Toxic Societies Will Always Shrink, Shrivel and Die Out

January 24, 2013 28 comments

One of the main set of problems which occupies the minds of, and causes frequent hand-wringing among, people in ‘developed’ countries goes something like this..

Why do ‘affluent’ and ‘developed’ societies shrink in numbers? Why is the fertility rate in ‘developed’ countries functionally sub-replacement? Why do financial incentives to have more kids not work? Why does increased levels of ‘wealth’ translate into people having far fewer or no kids?

There are those who believe that these behavioral changes are linked to people becoming more materialistic, secular and hedonistic. Others suggest that people are not having kids due to concern for the environment or other altruistic sounding reasons. Another group blames it on the cost of raising children and sees not having kids as a rational response to destruction of living standards due to following the cult of neo-liberalism.

But are any of these reasons real, large or widespread enough to account for what we see all over the world? While I do not deny that economic calculations and realities have an impact on fertility rates, they are at best a partial explanation. Countries with relatively stable living standards and decent prospects such as Germany, Sweden or Austria are not much better off that countries with decent but stagnant economies such as Japan or Italy. Furthermore, economically depressed countries such as Greece have very similar fertility rates to still booming countries such as South Korea or Taiwan. Culture can also be excluded from the list of major factors affecting fertility since Japanese culture has very little in common with any of the Italian sub-cultures which in turn has little in common with Swedish culture.

So how can we explain this drop in fertility to sub-replacement levels across a number of cultures and societies? While we could say that sub-replacement fertility in any given culture is due to its own unique set of circumstances and reasons, there are two problems with that type of explanation. Firstly, sub-replacement fertility can occur rather quickly (within a generation) in countries or regions that once had very high levels of fertility such as Mexico, Brazil, Iran and South India. Basic cultural assumptions and mindsets simply cannot change that fast, even if they really wanted to. Secondly, it is hard to ignore that the patterns of fertility change and their linkage to educational levels and occupational status is eerily similar across various countries and cultures.

So let me suggest another way of looking at this issue.

Have you ever though about what motivates most people to work towards a better future? Is it the threat of bad consequences or a reasonable chance at happiness? Unless you are a CONservative, LIEbertarian or otherwise delusional, it is obvious that it is the desire for happiness that drives people to work towards a better future. Sure, you can make most people work like slaves for a generation or two, but then things stop working and society slowly but surely comes apart. You simply cannot get people to care about the future through overt or covert force.

Could it be that the structure of social structure and organization in ‘developed’ and ‘affluent’ countries make people feel unhappy.

Here is a question- When is the last time you felt happy and optimistic about the future for more than a few hours? I am not asking you about the last time you acted as if you felt like that, but rather when you actually felt like that. So why is it so hard for people to feel happy in societies that are by measures very safe, secure and easy places to live in? Hardly anyone starves in developed countries (except maybe certain parts of the USA), goes with reasonably decent medical care (again.. expect parts of the USA) or lives very precariously (once again.. except the USA).

So why do high levels of personal security and relative affluence not translate into happiness?

There are those CONservative morons and LIEbertarian subhumans who say that people are desensitized to happiness by having all their basic physical needs met and only people who don’t have stuff can appreciate getting stuff. However I have yet to see CONservatives or LIEbertarians who want to willingly become poor so that they can happiness over every small gain in their life. Clearly these scumbags are preaching something they don’t believe in, let alone practice. Let us now consider an explanation that most people find too embarrassing and unpleasant to think about, let alone admit.

Maybe ‘developed’ and ‘affluent’ societies are built on and enforce rules, mores and behaviors that are for the lack of a better word- unnatural.

To be clear- I am not talking about ‘naturalness’ or ‘unnaturalness’ based on whether hunter-gatherers did it or not. Nor am I defining ‘naturalness’ based on any continuity with older cultural traditions. My definitions of both are based upon whether the rules, mores and behaviors in any given society are in direct conflict with what human beings really are- irrespective of race, culture, level of technology or any similar externality.

Almost every single human being desires certain things and experiences beyond immediate survival and safety. We desire human company, sex with other people, entertainment and doing other things to feel more happier. A person who cannot indulge in these activities is an incomplete and unhappy person at best, regardless of how safe and affluent the rest of their existence may be. Did you notice a common thread that runs through all of the things I just described? They require people to think, choose and act on their own.

Therefore any society that tries to suppress human agency will be filled with people who are perpetually unhappy, regardless of how comfortable and materially well provided they are.

All ‘developed’ and ‘affluent’ societies, without exception, are constantly involved in trying to suppress and subvert the human agency of people who live in them. While the precise mix of reasons behind doing that varies from one society to the other, the end results are rather similar and people just end up disconnecting from that society to the maximum extent possible. While most of them will go on living and pretending to be ‘normal’, deep down they just don’t care. In that respect people who live in rule and protocol-based societies from Germany, Switzerland and Sweden are very similar to those in Japan, Korea and Singapore or anglo- countries such as the USA, Canada, UK and Australia.

Suppressing and destroying human agency under the guise of ‘tradition’, ‘efficiency’, ‘conformity’ or ‘competition’ results in a system where almost nobody is happy or invested in the future viability of the system. People in such societies then try to act ‘normal’ when it is plainly obvious that their actions lead to rather abnormal outcomes.

You might have seen rich childless professionals striving to buy the biggest houses in the most expensive neighborhoods even though neither they nor anybody they care about or know can enjoy the fruits of their labors. Then there are people who attend multiple social events every week, routinely talk to hundreds of ‘friends’ and actively participate in society yet are incapable of basic trust in the person they live with- let alone those they call their ‘friends’. You also might have seen people who commute to work for almost 2 hours a day in large and expensive cars and SUVs just so they can live in a neighborhood filled with people who do the same. What about the physician or surgeon who makes half a million dollar an year only to spend most of their waking hours working and trying to extract more money from patients and insurance companies. Or the lawyers who spends the best decades of their lives trying to maximize their billable hours rather than enjoying life?

And what about the elaborate and worthless scams of European and East-Asian social etiquette. Do they make people happy or achieve anything worthwhile? Do they create societies that make people want to contribute to them? Is living you entire life as a passive-aggressive german (or canuck), an autistic swede, a deceptively rude french, a hatefully polite japanese or an insecure self-hating but obedient korean worth it? Even societies that are less socially rigid such as the USA are full of people who are openly phony and willing to stab their nearest and ‘dearest’ for small and temporary gains. These toxic and dysfunctional societies survived for a longish time only because they had a supply of new and naive suckers. Modern and effective methods of contraception put an end to that mode of survival and expansion.

We are therefore now observing and experiencing what should have occurred a long time ago- namely the shrinkage, shriveling and death of toxic societies.

what do you think? comments?

Riki Lindhome: Accidental Slut (2011)

January 19, 2013 11 comments

The majority of her musical performances are as one half of the musical comedy duo ‘Garfunkel and Oates‘. This video clip however is from a live performance of one of her solo songs. I am putting the lyrics below the video so that it is easier to follow the song since the quality of the live recording (esp the sound) is poor.

It starts with..

I’m a whore in girlfriend’s clothing
Didn’t even know it till last night
I went to a birthday party
What I saw just wasn’t right
Six men stood around the pool
All of whom had dated me
Some of them I’d come to know in
Varying degrees of biblically
Wondering how this had happened
I just stood there paralyzed
Trying to recall how each thing fizzled
When suddenly I realized

I’m everyone’s type till they get to know me
After that, not so much
Maybe the world is trying to show me
Be more careful what I touch
‘Cause all the men that I have dated
The numbers have accumulated
I’ve become an accidental slut

It goes on..

My mom says there’s two types of girls
The ones men fuck and the ones they marry
It had not occurred to me
I might be in the former category
‘Cause I really didn’t mean for this to happen
My intentions were pure with all six
But the title of whore-faced fucking ho bag
Doesn’t come with an asterisk
Don’t know exactly how this happened
Or when my judgment disappeared
But somewhere along the way
Shit got weird

Now I’m everyone’s type till they get to know me
After that, not so much
Maybe the world is trying to show me
It’s time to downshift my clutch
‘Cause all the men that I have dated
The numbers have accumulated
I’ve become an accidental slut

and ends with

I guess my cat’s out of the bag
So I might as well embrace it
‘Cause once Pandora’s left your box
There’s no way to erase it

And I’m everyone’s type till they get to know me
After that, not so much
Maybe the world is trying to show me
My capacitor’s out of flux
‘Cause all the men that I have dated
The numbers have accumulated
I’ve become an accidental slut

What do you guys think? Comments?

Categories: Music Video

Would You Use A Doomsday Device?

January 17, 2013 39 comments

I often ask hypothetical, and semi-hypothetical, questions to make people see familiar situations from a new viewpoint. The question posed in this post is meant to help you see the true nature of an individuals connection to the rest of humanity. So here is goes..

Would you use a Doomsday Device (DD) if you had exclusive access to one?

Let us first consider the most important issue surrounding the use of such a device, namely that it will kill every human being on earth including the one who used it. There will be no human survivors left to enjoy any excess of material goods after the event nor will it be possible to rebuild human civilization in any shape of form. It will mark the end of humans as a species and nobody will care, remember or commemorate your achievement.

So, would you still use it? or would you use the threat of the device to achieve personal fame, power, wealth or some ‘higher’ goal such as changing human nature for the better?

While I don’t claim to know, with a high degree of certainty, what you guys would do- I have a strong suspicion that most would try to use the threat of such a device as leverage to achieve personal goals. In short, I doubt it will be deliberately used as most humans are too interested in continuing their pathetic existence on earth.

I, however, would use it without hesitation and here is why..

1] My views on humanity have changed over the years. There was a time when I would have entertained the hope that humans beings might voluntarily change for the better. It has however become increasingly clear to me that human beings are incapable of voluntarily changing even when doing so is highly beneficial to them. Most people seem to prefer plodding around in shit-filled pits rather than try to get out of them. They don’t even want to acknowledge the mere possibility of anything existing beyond their shit-filled pits.

While you can change group behaviors through fear, such changes will be temporary. They will likely disappear once the threat is gone or people find a way or ideology to continue living in their shit-filled pits. Furthermore, since humans beings are mortal even exclusive possession and access to the DD for the rest of your life would at best improve things for 3-6 decades after which things might start to fall back to previous state of affairs. Then there are more mundane problems such as maintaining exclusive control and access to the DD or monitoring the progress and effects of your reforms.

2] You could always use your exclusive access to the DD to obtain personal fame, power, wealth and get everything else that accompanies them. However that is a very mediocre use of such a capability. Warlords, kings, emperors and dictators throughout human history have obtained all of the above through some combination of dumb luck, extreme sociopathy or accident of birth. Even people like Kim Kardashian and Lindsay Lohan can get almost all of that through little more than behaving like unstable and depraved attention-whores. Threatening to use a DD to attain public fame, make tons of money and fuck lots of hot groupies is a lot like hunting mice using a guided missile- certainly feasible but a massive overkill.

Moreover, maintaining exclusive control and access to the DD will (once again) occupy a considerable percentage of your time and mental efforts. Your situation under these circumstances would be rather similar to that of Gollum in LOTR, where his overwhelming desire to keep physical possession of the ‘one ring’ twists him into someone who cannot enjoy the true power of the ring. In my opinion, using a DD to get fame, power, wealth and sex is more trouble than it is worth.

Another possibility involves destroying the DD to prevent anyone else from using it. However anything that can be created once can also be created again. There is also nothing to stop the next person who gains control of such a device from either using or threatening the rest of humanity with it.

So far I have tried to show you why not using the DD or destroying it is less than optimal. So let us consider the ‘unthinkable’ option- using it.The principal objection to using the DD is that it would kill all humans including the person who activated it. But is death avoidable or optional in the first place? Even agelessness does not confer true immortality.

The real questions surrounding death therefore are ‘when’ and ‘how’. Linked to these two questions is another issue- namely the quality of life.

The answers to these questions depend upon on the amount of suffering and pain involved in living or dying. For example most people would prefer to die in their sleep or through some other relatively quick and painless means. Almost nobody wants to slowly die from painful terminal cancer or some other disease that leaves them invalid or bedridden. Similarly few people in good health and in a stable socio-economic situation are interested in dying. It is really about taking the path of least pain and suffering as far as the individual is concerned.

But does the survival of human beings as a species after your death matter?

The answer to that question lies in the nature of the relationship between the individual and society he or she lives in. Scenarios where the relationship between the individual and society are symbiotic and mutually beneficial do not typically cause a dying individual to wish for the death of the society he or she lives in. However the same is not true in scenarios where society is either uncaring, abusive or exploitative towards the individual. Individuals in such societies have either no interest in what happens to everyone else after their death or they actively wish for their destruction.

As I have said in many of my previous posts- it is painfully obvious to a large and rapidly increasing minority of people that we live in a society that is uncaring, abusive and downright exploitative. Now factor in the very high levels of social atomization, frequent betrayals in close relationships and fewer people having any kids. It does not take a genius to figure out that a significant minority of people today have little to no interest (or hope) in the continuation of humans as a species.

I therefore believe that the chances of a DD being used are much higher than most people are willing to themselves believe. Another factor that makes this scenario more probable is that throughout human history people lacked the technological means or opportunity to kill everyone else along with them. Today, that is no longer the case and such an outcome is within the realms of both technology and possibility. It is therefore really a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’.

What do you think? Comments?

Lance Armstrong is the Quintessential American Hero

January 15, 2013 9 comments

You might have heard that disgraced road racing cyclist Lance Armstrong has admitted in a recorded interview with Oprah Winfrey that he used performance enhancing drugs during (and likely throughout) his professional cycling career. Apparently this worthless and meaningless admission has become a major news story and many people are concerned about its effect on the public image of other american heroes.

I however see this concern as misplaced since Lance Armstrong is, was, and always will be the quintessential american hero.

To understand what I am talking about let us start by listing the attributes that go into creating the quintessential american hero.

1] You have to be involved in the ‘right’ and ‘popular’ activities. Remember that American heroes never reach that status by doing something that might benefit or uplift humanity. You will never become an american hero by developing new drugs to treat previously incurable diseases, developing new technology to explore the universe or provide unlimited clean energy to humanity. Americans don’t care about people who do such ‘boring’ or ‘nerdy’ activities and will ignore them at best and humiliate or destroy them at worst. To become a true american hero you have to be a famous sport-star, renowned actor, popular musician, well-known mercenary or be involved with those glorious fields of human endeavor. Remember that people like Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky are true american heroes unlike the losers who developed the first effective antibiotics, built the Saturn 5 rocket or developed commercial nuclear reactors.

2] You have to look the part. It is not possible to become a true american hero unless you are good-looking man or a hot woman. Americans don’t like ugly or even plain-looking heroes. Do you think Americans would ever elect a bald or short president even if he was the most competent man for job? Sure, it used to happen before the age of TV- but not since then. Even an excellent but average looking sports-star will never be as big a hero a mediocre but attractive sport-star. Similarly an attractive but mediocre actor will reach heights of public acclaim that his less attractive but more competent counterpart will never reach. Even a military general who looks like a military general will have a far better chance of becoming an american hero than a more competent general who just does not look that ‘general-like’. While plastic surgery and cosmetic dentistry can help, innate good look are almost mandatory.

3] You must be good at public relations. Americans hate people who are realists or try to be factual as reality and facts are a major downer. The ability to lie, confabulate, distort truth or be selectively truthful is an absolute must for any true american hero. You can also supplement your natural ability in this area by hiring PR hacks, image consultants and getting all of your public statements preapproved by lawyers. It is also necessary to be able to convincingly fake the right amount of emotion at the right time. Nobody likes an american hero who cannot deliver the almost inevitable insincere apology without the right amount of public contrition. Once again, natural talent can be supplemented and enhanced by acting lessons. It is important to realize that good public relations is a 24/7 operation and letting the mask slip off for any extended length of time will seriously damage your chances at becoming a true american hero.

4] You have to seen as busy and engaged in your endeavor of choice. Americans don’t like idle people who can achieve great things since that is contrary to the calvinist worldview. The appearance of activity is extremely important for a true american hero because that is how you justify your rank and status. Nobody cares if your actions lead to any real worthwhile outcome as that is irrelevant. Heck, people don’t care even if you actions are hurting or destroying the lives of many others as long as you can justify it through the right amount of rhetoric, charm, outright lies and spin. In the worst case scenario, you can always deliver a carefully crafted, well-acted yet meaningless apology to those hurt or killed by your actions. It also helps if you can do that by quoting passages from the bible- because Americans know that religious people are always good at heart. Having an attractive and well-dressed family, who are good at acting, by your side is very useful when delivering apologies or justifying the unjustifiable.

5] It is important to appear and remain culturally relevant. Now doing that does require some skill and a good grasp of public tastes and trends. One of the most common ways of doing that involves creating foundations, charities or some sort of organisations devoted to solving or alleviating some real problem. While your organization will not achieve any success in its stated mission, it will create many job opportunities for lesser ‘do-gooders’ who in turn will sing your praises to an even bigger audience. Similarly standing upon the ruins of buildings destroyed through your incompetence will make you seem more leader-like than actually doing anything to fix the problems that led to the tragedy. Remember that good PR (point 3) is best served in a context or situation that demonstrates engagement and relevance even if you had to create the problem in the first place. Americans prefer bigger than life emotions, theatrical performances and entertainment over actually doing something.

In conclusion, Americans truly deserve their heroes- every single one of them.

What do you think? Comments?

Garfunkel and Oates: The Loophole

January 14, 2013 4 comments

Better known as “Fuck me in the ass cause I love Jesus”

Enjoy! Comments?

North Americans as Clockwork Oranges

January 13, 2013 11 comments

The film adaptation of Anthony Burgess novella, A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick is one of more famous but controversial films produced in the 1970s. However this post is not about the film or the book, but about the meaning of their titles as it concerns people in developed countries, especially in North America.

One of the best definition of a Clockwork Orange goes something like this-

Someone who appears normal to the eye and holds the colors of life (orange), but is really a tool for someone or something else (clockwork).

Another explanation of the concept I am talking about can be found in the intro sequence of American Pyscho (2000), when the character of Patrick Bateman ends the description of his morning routine with this-

I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don’t know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip.

While this particular mindset is usually attributed to a small minority of people known as high-functioning sociopaths, I believe that it only an extreme version of the “normal” worldview of most people in the so-called ‘developed’ countries, especially those in North America. Consider the evidence..

Have you ever noticed that the relationship between parents and their children are very odd, formal and really fucked up in most developed countries, especially those that started out as ‘anglo-saxon’ nations? Some might try to explain this away as “cultural” differences, but what is normal about societies where the parent-child relationship is driven by the need for external approval seeking and socially obligated duty than any genuine feeling, concern or emotional attachment towards their children? I am not suggesting that all non-white and non-east asian parents are great at parenting, but it is hard to ignore that the median levels of emotional attachment and investment in parenting are much higher in non-white and non-east asian cultures.

The lack of emotional attachment and investment best explains why western and east-asian countries have such low rates of fertility after the development of effective contraception. Before the development of effective contraception, having kids was almost an inevitability. But after that it became a choice. People don’t willingly choose to acquire something they don’t particularly care about or have a strong emotional need for. Other purported reasons such as working longer hours, materialism or women entering the workplace are at best secondary to the unpleasant basic reason- irreversibly damaged human beings don’t have real emotions or desires. People pretend to like kids or express a desire to have them because that is socially acceptable behavior. In reality, they could care less and rather spend all that money, effort and emotion on impressing people who don’t care less.

The same can be said about the nature of all other inter-personal relationships in such societies. People pretend to have friends and acquaintances or pretend to join various social groups and movements just so that nobody labels them as ‘weird’. The reality is that most people in such societies have no interest in any real human connection with other humans. While there are genuine reasons for not wanting real human connection such as the fake politeness, phoniness and generalized dishonesty that seems to pervade all human interaction in these societies- we also have the address the more basic issue of whether people in such societies are actually capable of human emotions.

I believe that a majority of people in certain societies are no longer capable of feeling what we consider to be normal and important human emotions and feelings. They simply don’t have the mental circuitry to experience love, attachment and many other emotions for their kids, relatives, friends or any genuine empathy for other human beings. They only pretend to be capable of those things for maintaining social rank, face and status (or to be not labelled “weird”).

While they may look, talk and act like ‘normal’ human beings, they are as human as clockwork oranges are real oranges.

What do you think? Comments?

The ‘Friend-Zone’ Explained: Garfunkel and Oates

January 13, 2013 4 comments

A live performance of “I Would Never Have Sex with You” which I think is better than the webcam version of that song- largely because of the audience interaction.

It contains such lyrics as..

Cause I really like you as a friend
But there are things I can’t pretend
Know I would love you ’til the end
But there is just one problem (problem, problem)

I would never have sex with you
Believe me, you’d know it if I wanted to
I already would have shown my boobs to you
But that will never happen

and here are some relevant lyrics from that song.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise
You should’ve seen it in my eyes
I kinda like some other guy
But there’s a bigger problem

I would never have sex with you
Believe me, you’d know it if I wanted to
I already would have gone down on you (Kate: You would have liked it!)
But that will never happen

and the clincher.

No amount of alcohol
Could change my mind at all
Our lips will never touch
So kiss that thought goodbye

I would never have sex with you
Believe me you’d know it if I wanted to
I already would have held hands with you
But that will never happen

Enjoy! Comments?

NSFW Links: Jan 12, 2013

January 12, 2013 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Outdoor Spreads: Jan 12, 2013 – Hot, smooth, slim, toned and yes.. spread.

Tip BJs: Jan 12, 2013 – Girls attending to and around the glans penis.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

How ‘Anodyne’ Communication Destroys Societal Trust

January 9, 2013 40 comments

A few months ago I went to an all expenses paid job interview in another city. The interview went well and I was one of the top 2-3 candidates. However I did not get the job, which is fine by me for reasons that I will mention later on in this post. I did however find the ‘rejection’ email interesting because it is one of the better examples of what passes for communication in the corporate environment today.

Here is the name-redacted email..

Dear AD,

The ‘Acme Gadget Group’ interview team wants to thank you for taking the time to participate in our hiring process through the on-site interview stage. This letter is to let you know that despite your impressive experience, after long consideration we have decided to go with another candidate.

Again, thank you for your time and efforts to come to ‘AGG’. We enjoyed meeting you and our discussions indicate that you have much to offer your next employer.

We wish you both personal and professional success in your future endeavors.



While such emails or letters sound polite and to the point, the reality is rather different. To understand what I am talking about, let me ask you a question.

Would you communicate like that to a person you seriously considered having a personal relationship with?

Some of you might say- “but it is work, not a relationship”. My point is that work in the current setup is a relationship if you consider the time and effort you put into it- never mind the amount of communication with those who work around you. People spend more time around the people they work with than members of their own family. While you might trust your family members (hopefully) more than your coworkers, it is hard to get around the fact that your frenemies at work are members of your extended social circle- for better or worse.

For most of human history the people who worked around, or with you, were also your kith and kin. While that could be boring and sometimes problematic, it placed hard limits on how your coworkers or employers could treat you. Thoughtless or sociopathic behavior had consequences, both immediate and delayed. You just could not get away with certain behaviors without accepting a significant personal risk.

The industrial revolution started changing that, though not as much as most people think. People still mostly worked with or around people from similar backgrounds to whom they were often related- if somewhat distantly. Jobs and careers were still decades long and people had enough time to develop some sort of ersatz relationships with their coworkers.

However things started changing around the late-1970s and early-1980s. While there are many reasons behind the socio-cultural shifts that occurred around that time, this post will focus on the results. Prior to the late-1970s, most people around the world could look forward to a fairly stable local environment. Sure, there were wars and other large-scale events, but these events were infrequent and of a very large magnitude.

We never had a world where the big picture was reasonably constant but the local environment around almost every individual was in a state of constant flux.

The real problem with such constant changes in the environment around individuals is that, sooner or later, most people stop caring about the people around them. This extends to both personal as well as ‘work’ relationships. While societies in which interpersonal relationships have deteriorated might appear normal during times of economic expansion, prolonged slowdowns or economic contractions reveal the massive fault lines within that society and exposes its true fragility. While dysfunctional societies become fragile over decades, the actual process of implosion or collapse is rather fast and triggered by seemingly minor and often unrelated events.

But what does all of this have to do with anodyne corporate language? and how does it contribute to the destruction of social trust and why is it important?

Exchanging information for the purpose of maintaining function, stability and order in the dynamically unstable system also known as human society is probably the most important function of communication. However any useful exchange of information requires certain preconditions. For example- It is hard to have a decent and long-lasting personal relationships with another person if you both spend most of your time lying or being selectively truthful with each other. I am not implying that people have to be totally truthful to each other all the time, but it is equally clear that lying and selective truthfulness beyond certain levels is incompatible with any degree of future inter-personal trust.

But what about modern corporations, large businesses and impersonal institutions that are run for the sole benefit of a few connected sociopaths? Do they understand, let alone care about, the necessity for minimal levels of sincerity and useful information content in communications?

The simple answer to that question is.. NO! Modern organisations and institutions are dominated by impersonal sociopaths, careerism-driven managers, scummy human resource types and lawyers who want to make a quick buck while showing everybody that they are so clever. Unlike their counterparts from the pre-1980s era, none of them have any medium-term (let along long-term) plans or involvement with the organisations and institutions they hollow out for short-term gains. Their modus operandi is rather similar to a virus infecting a bunch of healthy cells or cancerous cells metastasizing in an otherwise healthy individual. Sadly these individuals do determine the tone and tenor of contemporary institutional policies and communications. It is therefore no surprise that institutional communications have become increasingly vague, non-specific, full of “hope” and “optimism” without any actionable or concrete suggestions or plan of action.

The nature of corporate communication has now become disturbingly similar to the fake biochemical signals used by metastasizing cancerous cells and viruses to use, abuse and subvert the host.

But there is another dimension to this issue which makes it far more problematic in human societies. People, unlike cells, emulate and imitate strategies which are seen as successful for the individual, even if doing so destroys the social system that keeps things going. Consequently the ‘corporatese’ lies and selective truths that permeate large institutions and organisations seep into smaller versions of them and ultimatey into general society. Soon almost everyone is communicating to each other with the same attitudes, mindsets and expectations as impersonal sociopathic corporations.

It is common for the hacks who pass off as ‘respected’ journalists to bemoan the rapidly increasing amount of general flakiness in society, the unwillingness to keep even simple promises, outpouring of fake emotions to incidents and other instances of social phoniness. But they rarely ask why so many unrelated people are behaving so similarly. I mean.. why are they all following the same basic script? I believe that anodyne styles of communicating and the ‘corporate’ mindset has completely permeated general society in North America, Western Europe and increasingly other parts of the world.

However doing so on a large-scale results in a particular self-protective response aka social atomization.

I see social atomization as the result of individuals trying to protect themselves from a constant barrage of half-truths, lies, general phoniness, legalized scams and ‘official’ abuses of power. People isolate themselves from, and limit communication with, those they cannot trust. In the past, this meant a few especially dishonest acquaintances and strangers. Today that means all of society- including members of your innermost social circle.

People don’t spend ever-increasing amounts of time checking their social media feeds or doing something else on their shiny electronic toys because the online world is better. They do that because the so-called ‘real’ world is too toxic to engage with other than when absolutely necessary. People are just not interested in becoming the next victim of another persons lies, business scams, confidence tricks, fake emotions or carefully measured communications.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Do Female Celebrities Have Unusually High Rates of Self-Reported Sexual Abuse?

January 6, 2013 16 comments

If you look at almost anything long enough, your brain starts seeing patterns- some accidental, some meaningful. The question raised in this post started as a chance observation but morphed in something bigger over the years. In its most basic form, my question is-

Why do so many female celebrities (especially actresses, singers, dancers and other media stars) report being sexually abused as children or teenagers?

Let me be clear.. I am not saying that every single one, or even the majority, of them are lying about less than pleasurable sexual experiences during their childhood or teenage years. But it is hard to ignore that the self-reported incidence for sexual abuse among media-driven celebrities is unusually high. Almost every week one more female celebrity claims hitherto undisclosed sexual abuse as a child or teenager. At this stage, it is easier to keep a list of female celebrities who have not yet claimed that they were sexually abused as kids or teens.

Even the disclosure follows a pattern which goes something like this.. Celebrity ‘X’ claims that her drug habit, other bizarre behavior or eating disorder were due to sexual abuse when she was a child or teenager. The media explode with pseudo-sympathy and interview her about it and she gets some positive attention, until the next female celebrity comes out with a similar story to hog the fleeting spotlight.

So what is the deal? Is there something about the career trajectory of becoming famous in the entertainment industry that makes women especially susceptible to sexual abuse in their younger years?

As many of you know, the entertainment industry tends to attract people with certain personality types. You will rarely find introverts or conservative-minded people in showbiz. People who are looking for a steady paycheck or a ‘white-picket fence’ lifestyle also don’t gravitate towards showbiz. Nor is showbiz filled with ugly or even average-looking people. I think that is therefore fair to say that entertainment industry does attract good-looking people who crave public acclaim and can tolerate a higher than average amount of drama in their personal lives. Even those who don’t make it big in showbiz have very similar personalities to those who get lucky and hit the jackpot.

In a way, people in showbiz are a very specific subset of the general population- but why should it make women in showbiz more susceptible to sexual abuse in their younger years? We have all heard and seen examples of parents who push their kids into showbiz at the expense of their childhood. It is certainly conceivable that the peculiar intersection of dysfunctional family life, highly focused parental ambition and willingness to please do put very attractive girls in their teens at an increased risk of being sexualized.. sometimes against their will. While this explanation works for some of the more well-known cases of sexual abuse in showbiz, especially those publicized in the early to mid-1990s- it cannot account for the deluge of sexual abuse accusations from the late-1990s onwards.

Clearly something beyond conventional showbiz exploitation is behind the epidemic of accusations about previous sexual abuse.

I have a theory that goes something like this.. People in showbiz enter that line of work because they crave public attention and acclaim. You don’t tolerate all the shit in showbiz because you want to make a decent and stable income. It is not a stretch to say that showbiz types are fueled by the desire for more fame and publicity, preferably positive. Given that the celebrity lifestyle and fame has its ups and downs- it is not inconceivable that some might choose to use the victim status and deferential treatment given to female ‘survivors’ of sexual abuse to get a little status bump. In any case, some other celebrity will take the spotlight away from them in a week or two. It is also possible that the events recounted during these confessions of prior sexual abuse are factual, but not as one-sided as the accuser claims.

What do you think? Comments?

The Most Repulsive Form of of White Hypocrisy: 1

January 5, 2013 9 comments

As I have mentioned directly and indirectly in many of my previous posts, one of the most disturbing aspects of white behavior is a certain type of hypocrisy which I will call the ‘pretense of objectivity’. So how is the pretense of objectivity different from garden variety hypocrisy? and why is it especially repulsive?

Let me begin by acknowledging that the behavior of all human beings, including myself, is hypocritical to some extent. The real question then becomes- what are the levels and types of hypocrisy exhibited by any given individual?

Let me explain the idea that not all varieties of hypocrisy are equal with an analogous example. You might have seen ‘human interest’-type news reports which “show” that some household items which we consider clean are covered in germs and the ones labelled as dirty are in fact quite clean. But is that true and does it matter? Are all bacteria, fungi or viruses equally bad? The answer is- NO! Experimental evidence from the past suggest that anywhere between 1-10 smallpox virons could cause infection and disease in non-immune human beings with an average mortality of 20-40%. Compare that with getting a gastro-intestinal infection due to non-human specific species of Salmonella from eating an inadequately cooked piece of chicken which requires anywhere between 1 million to 1 billion bacteria to cause clinical illness. Also note that salmonellosis only kills a very minuscule percentage of those who develop symptoms. Similarly water from a lake in a sparsely inhabited area of the rocky mountains is much safer to drink than one from a lake of similar size in England- even if they have the same bacterial and even the same coliform count. The type of microbes are therefore as, and often more, important than their quantity.

So how does that relate to types of hypocrisy? Are all types of hypocrisy just as bad or are some much worse and despicable than others?

Let me use another example of illustrate this concept. People, irrespective of race and language, try to convince themselves they are better than others by measuring things that have no obvious relation to reality. Many “religious” Hindus might label beef-eating as bad because it makes them feel better than those who do. Similarly, most Han Chinese want to believe that they are the original civilized humans inspite of the lack of, or contrary, evidence. One can also think of the sports culture in the USA eschewing games in which people from other countries might win as another example where people pretend something is true to make themselves feel better. But such ‘self-lies’ are not particularly harmful. I am not aware of devout Hindus fighting wars over the right of non-Hindus to eat beef, chinese don’t go to war over the discovery of ancient archaeological sites in present-day Turkey nor has the USA attacked another nation to make them stop playing games in which Americans suck.

The especially repulsive form of hypocrisy that I am referring to is closer to ‘double-think‘ than more common forms of hypocrisy.

In garden-variety hypocrisy people “promote or administer virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc. which they do not actually have and are also guilty of violating”. For example, a gay preacher who marries a woman and preaches against homosexuality while having meth-fueled sex with a male prostitute is a hypocrite- albeit of the more traditional type. However the hypocrite knows that he or she is a hypocrite. Infact that self-knowledge is what separates traditional hypocrisy from double-think. In double-think, the individual accepts two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts, without the self-knowledge that characterizes garden-variety hypocrisy.

While some consider hypocrisy as distinct from double-think, I see it as the first step on the continuum towards double-think. For me the crucial difference between the hypocrite and double-thinker lies in the hypocrite having some residual awareness of their deceit. So how does the ‘pretense of objectivity’ come into the picture and why is closer to hypocrisy than true double-think.

The ‘pretense of objectivity’ is far more common in the west since it has become progressively harder to justify human abuse, torture and death by invoking a god, prophecy or tradition. Justifying the continued abuse of blacks sounds more “rational” if you call it “War on Drugs‘ rather than Slavery 3.0 or Jim Crow 2.0. Similarly blaming the high levels of poverty and social dysfunction in blacks on “genetics” sounds much better than addressing the multitude of institutionalized barriers faced by them through no fault of theirs.Justifying income inequality on the basis of ‘IQ’ scores,’PISA’ scores or performances at the ‘Math Olympiad‘ is easier when you ignore that the truly rich got so by some combination of birth, luck and deceit. What is the extent of overlap between MENSA membership and the list of people who are worth more than 10 million dollars in the USA? There is also the rather vexing issue of women choosing ‘low IQ’ men over these ‘high IQ’ nerds.

The ‘pretense of objectivity’ does however resemble double-think in that most of those who believe in it want it to be true- regardless of evidence to the contrary. For example- many white men want to believe that white women are the most beautiful and desirable inspite of evidence to the contrary. Having had sex with scores of escorts of all races and racial mixtures, I cannot say that sex with white escorts (even the really hot and professional ones) to be any better than comparable non-white escorts. Since beauty in women is largely about how badly want to nail her and how it feels when you do it- I can honestly say that wanting to and fucking a hot blond chick is equivalent to doing that to a hot black or hispanic chick. And yet you will find tons of blogs and comments on them in which men try to find all sorts of ‘scientific sounding’ and ‘rational’ reasons why white chicks are the most beautiful. The autistic morons who believe in HBD seem especially susceptible to the desire to believe in that crap. To this end they will try to create tables of data which supposedly validate their belief. I cannot resist pointing that men who indulge in such data collection and analysis don’t seem to be getting laid with even plain-looking white women, let alone with hot women of any race.

Similarly we see a lot of bullshit about “evolutionary psychology” and how some social classes or races are more deserving or better than others. However I am not so sure that evidence backs that argument. A greedy, egoistic or stupid physician can and does kill more people than your median serial killer– while getting a nice amount of money for doing that. Furthermore physicians or surgeons almost never make any worthwhile medical breakthrough that saves even a few more lives. Would you therefore not say that ‘IQ’ test results or the ability to get into and complete ‘competitive’ medical schools fails to screen out the significant minority of physicians who cause more problems and deaths than they prevent. I should also point out that serial killers who are captured are proud and aware of the result of their actions unlike the physicians who have convinced themselves of their innocence.

I will write more about this particular topic with far more specific examples and names in the next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

Solutions That Sound Like Common Sense Are Usually Disingenuous: 1

January 3, 2013 13 comments

Vocal believers in many peculiar ideologies such as CONservatism, LIEbertarianism and LIEbralism like to believe, or at least pretend, that they have optimal solutions to a host of problems and non-problems facing society. While these ‘solutions’ frequently sound reasonable, feasible and at least superficially rational- they are either unimplementable or attempts to do so end up causing far more harm than good.

So why do solutions based on ‘common sense’, ‘experience, ‘rationality’ or other authoritative sounding words fail so badly? Why are so many of these solutions unimplementable?

Some of you might say that human beings themselves are the source of their own suffering. Entire religions and similar belief systems have been built around the general idea that human beings are somehow ‘born in sin’ or not evolved enough. However these belief systems have not made things any better and frequently end up screwing things even more. So what is happening? How can every attempt to fix things fail or make it worse?

I believe that the most important and widespread problem underlying all attempts to improve humanity is based in the highly subjective nature of human self-image. The vast majority of human beings desperately want to believe that they are right, good, justified, moral, chosen or deserving inspite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Spanish Conquistadors actually believed that killing and enslaving mesoamericans was the christian thing to do- in addition to being a highly profitable way to make a living off stolen gold. The various muslims invaders of North India actually believed that killing and enslaving infidels was their religious duty- in addition to being very profitable. The southern whites who used black slave labor to build their fortunes actually believed that they were good christian people engaged in a morally correct behavior. The guys who ran concentration camps and gulags actually believed that they were good workers and many of them took great pride in their efficiency at killing Jews and political prisoners. I am sure that many american soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan also believed that they were doing the right thing- even if the evidence around them did not support their beliefs.

The sad fact is that most human beings cannot face the reality of who they really are. They are either unwilling, or unable, to look at the world around them in an objective manner. In that respect, children are far more realistic and objective and we try hard to make them lose the ability or courage to keep on being objective or realistic. Humans are therefore not inherently irrational, subjective or delusional. It takes many years and a lot or practice to become an ‘adult’. Now I am not saying that human beings are inherently ‘good’ by any objective or subjective measure. Indeed, what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is too often a very subjective judgement. My claim, instead, is that most human beings are not inherently fucked up in the head and are capable of a basic level of objective thinking.

The real question then is: Why do people believe in things and concepts that just don’t add up? How can being a member of religions that promises enlightenment and peace translate into committing theft and genocide? How can being a good worker for an organisation translate into pride in killing other human beings? Even scientists who consider themselves as the paragons of objectivity believe in things such as dark matter, dark energy and anthropogenic global warming.

The answer to these questions is deeply linked to the original question posed in this post, namely why solutions based on ‘common sense’, ‘experience, ‘rationality’ or other authoritative sounding words fail so badly?

Let us, for a minute, consider the possibility that human beings are rather different from what we want to believe about ourselves. I have partially tackled these issues in a couple of my recent posts (Cults, Religions and Ideologies Merely Unmask Human Nature and Cults, Religions, Ideologies and Willful Self-Delusion). The gist of those posts was that the behavior of human beings is functionally closer to mindless, poisonous and invasive weeds than sentient apes. It is just that humans ego is unwilling to accept its quantifiable self-image. Belief in religions, secular ideologies and institutions are merely complex justifications and self-rationalizations for acting in a manner that is contrary to the idealized self-image.

Believers are faithful, followers are unquestioning and zealots are zealous because they have invested much more than simple faith in their worldviews. In many cases, their whole self-image and self-worth is linked to, and dependent upon, continued belief in whatever fairy tale they choose to believe in.

But what does belief in adult fairy tales have to do with real world problems and our inability to solve them? Why is the ability to believe in bullshit so detrimental to human happiness? What is the connection between a malformed mental model of the external world and an inability to solve problems or practical importance.

It comes to two interlocking problems- willful blindness in some areas complemented by ‘seeing things’ in other areas.

Let us look at the second problem first.. People often go into hysterics about things that don’t really matter. I see these as made up ‘problems’ which don’t really exist.

For example- many people express outrage at other people using recreational drugs or having some forms of consensual sex because they are concerned about “public morality” and “want to protect the children”. It it really your problem if some other people prefer opioids, stimulants or marijuana over alcohol or tobacco? Isn’t the criminality and high cost of “illegal” drugs predominantly because they are “illegal”?. You could easily churn out high-quality morphine, methamphetamine and high-grade marijuana at a 10-20 cents per adult dose and still make a profit- if they were legal. Instead we spend tens of billions of dollars per year to fight the failed ‘War on Drugs’, not to mentioned the tens of billions more to incarcerate and punish millions of predominantly non-white “offenders”. In the USA, alcoholism is a disease while “illegal” drug use is a moral failure.

Similarly the USA spends tens of billions trying to control prostitution which, as many of you know, is the most honest and equal male-female relationship out there. However we do count alimony, child-support payments or buying bigger homes etc for wives as payment for sex- though I cannot see any other justification for those money transfers and transactions. Let us face it- prostitution compares rather favorably with marriage and even long-term relationships in the amount of great sex per unit of money spent on obtaining it. Yet people never tire of coming up with newer solutions to the non-problems of “illegal drug use” and “prostitution”.

Here is the thing.. you can only solve a problem if it is real. Trying to classify a non-problem as a problem and then trying to solve it will always make things worse than before for almost every person in that society other than the scumbags who profit from such ‘holy’ crusades.

On the other end of the spectrum, people ignore very real, highly visible and serious problems by claiming that they don’t really exist. We ignore youth unemployment and underemployment by believing that the problem will just go way if we ignore it- inspite of the fact that we no longer live in a high-fertility world. People keep on telling themselves that the ‘problems are temporary’, the ‘young have a poor wok ethic’, ‘life is unfair’ etc without factoring in that we have run out of the constant supply of naive youngsters to screw over. We try to solve these problems by kicking the can down the road, asking everyone to take loads of debt to go to university, talking about a ‘bright’ future etc when almost anyone can see that things are in a death spiral.

In future parts of this series, I will write more about how the bizarre tendency to convert non-problems into problems while ignoring real ones defines human beings as a species.

What do you think? Comments?

My Views about Alt-Right and Game Blogs

January 1, 2013 38 comments

I considered writing a longish post on my views about ‘alt-right’ and ‘game’ blogs, given the considerable overlap between them. Then I realized that a very alternative music video known as ‘Sissy Boy Slap Party‘ by Guy Maddin would do the trick.

So here it is..

Note the masculine posturing of the old man who leaves at the beginning of the video to ‘go to the shop and buy some condoms’ after telling one of the younger guys to ‘go back to the gym; you look like you are gaining some weight’.

Enjoy! Comments?