Archive for April, 2013

Julia Price: The Checklist Song (2012)

April 30, 2013 12 comments

An uncommon example of a woman openly satirizing women who create long checklists for ‘must haves’ attributes in potential boyfriends.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: LOL, YouTube

Religious Radicalization as a Response to Socio-Economic Dysfunction

April 28, 2013 10 comments

I was originally going to post this article a few days ago. However my desire to be reasonably sure about what I am about to say made me procrastinate till the general direction of information was more supportive of my hypothesis.

A lot of people are wondering if the Boston marathon bombers were driven by religious beliefs. While there is no doubt that their actions were influenced by a certain set and interpretation of religious beliefs, that angle does not explain how they became radicalized and extra-religious in the first place.

As we all know, both were Chechens who were born and partly grew up (especially the older brother) in an era when the outside world was especially unstable and hostile from their viewpoint. Having said that, they did not come from a family that was especially poor or religious nor had they lost any close relatives in the conflict. Their father and uncle appear to be reasonably well-educated and secular, if somewhat shady, people. If you look at older pictures of that family, they just don’t give off the ‘we are so religious’ aura.

So what happened? How does a guy who was into sports, clothes, cars, babes and making lots of money become a religious radical? Why does a guy who was looking forward to getting american citizenship and perhaps a spot on the american olympic boxing team as late as 2009 decide that bombing the Boston Marathon was his purpose in life? and what about his younger brother? How does a reasonably popular stoner who made extra cash by selling pot and involvement in car theft rackets decide that joining his older brother in waging “holy war” against the country he grew up in was a good idea?

The conventional explanations for this turn of events range from something about hot-blooded Chechens, some mysterious radicalizing preacher, the internet, a conspiracy to advance public acceptance for militarization of american police forces and a host of other explanations that you can find on the intertubes. But what if we are missing a far more obvious and straightforward explanation for their religious radicalization?

Is religious radicalization, especially of the Islamic variety, a consequence of systemic socio-economic dysfunction?

It is hard to ignore that the increasing religiosity and radicalization of the Tsarnaev brothers, and their mother, has a pretty strong correlation with their declining fortunes and hope for a better future in the USA. Tamerlan, the older of the two brothers, was not an especially religious Muslim or even a traditional Chechen in his late teens and early 20s. He moved out of his parents house, was chasing chicks in nightclubs, living with pretty attractive women, was perhaps involved in pot-grow operations and trained for MMA competitions. He did not exhibit any strong interest in spreading the word of Islam beyond trying to convert his pretty fit girlfriends.

The younger brother, Dzhokhar, was even less of a religious guy. The interviews of people who used to hang out with him suggest that he was pretty much your basic stoner who sold extra weed on the side. There is very little in his background or known tastes in lifestyle, music, media or women to suggest that he was a religiously observant person. If anything, he comes across as the small-time drug dealer/ entrepreneur type rather somebody who believed in 72 virgins.

I believe that the roots of their radicalization lie in the changing nature of american society. For many decades, but especially between the 1950s to mid-1990s, USA was the best place to immigrate- legally or “illegally”. There used to be lots of real opportunities for immigrants to make it big, or failing that- at least lead a pretty comfy and prosperous middle-class lifestyle. Even poor and ‘less-educated’ immigrants had a pretty decent chance of making it into the middle-class. However things started to change for the worse in the late 1990s. It became harder and harder for both “native-born” and immigrant americans to remain in the middle-class, let alone climb into it.

We can come up all sorts of explanations for what drove this change, but the net effect has been that a rapidly increasing number of americans (especially among younger age groups) do not believe that the system will treat them fairly. They routinely see connected ivy-league educated sociopaths make mistakes and still collect their millions and billions, while competent and loyal people like them get screwed over. While this double standard has always been a feature of american society, the system had kept it from becoming the dominating feature of american society for many decades. I believe that the collapse of the soviet union in the late 1980s-early 1990s unleashed the full greed of the ‘elites’ resulting in the openly and highly dysfunctional society we live in today.

While CONservative morons might not see anything wrong with this change, almost everyone with more than half a brain understands (at some level) that the current socio-economic system is highly dysfunctional. All stable and functional societies remain so only as long as most people living in them believe that the system is largely fair, reasonable and worth their while. People will either withdraw from or stop co-operating with systems that are seen as dishonest, abusive or non worth their while.

It is very likely that the Tsarnaev family immigrated to the USA in the early 2000s under the impression that they would be afforded the same opportunities as people like them used to as late as the early 1990s. But a lot changed between the early-1990s and the early-2000s. Many of the paths and opportunities that would have allowed them to move into the middle-class or beyond simply did not exist. The father was reduced from a stable legal job in a ministry to fixing cars as an unlicensed mechanic. The mother went from a homemaker to somebody hustling for small jobs. While these trials and tribulations might initially have been dismissed as temporary, they soon realized that was not the case.

It certainly did not help that Tamerlan’s promising boxing/MMA career started to unravel for reasons that were unfair and beyond his control. The younger brother, Dzhokhar, while clearly not stupid was just not an academic. He, like his older brother, preferred a life with booze, drugs and babes- and who can blame them. Which rational person would prefer to live like an under-sexed dweeb for the ‘chance’ of higher future earnings in a society with an obviously broken contract.

To make a long story short- the rather shitty experience of the Tsarnaev family in the USA, as individuals and as a group, was very likely what drove Tamerlan and Dzhokhar on a path of self-directed religious radicalization. In a way, they are far more like James Holmes (Aurora Theater Massacre)and Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Shooter) than somebody who was indoctrinated from birth to fight some religious war. Also note that Holmes and Lanza came from highly secular backgrounds and therefore found secular justifications for their actions (mental illness, autism/nihilism). The Tsarnaev brothers justified their actions through religious beliefs mainly because they were more familiar with religion than fashionable psychiatric mumbo-jumbo.

What do you think? Comments?

Behind the Overreaction to the Boston Marathon Bombing

April 21, 2013 12 comments

I am sure that almost all of you saw, and sorta followed, events subsequent to the Boston Marathon bombings. You might have also read many posts, editorials and articles about the excessive show of largely ineffectual force and the passive acceptance of such displays by the citizenry. In the end, Bomber 1 was killed in an average police shootout and Bomber 2 was caught because some guy went to check on his boat. Many people have confounded by the thought process behind the decision to shut down a major US city for the purpose of locating a 19-year old stoner with a couple of guns and perhaps.. a pipe bomb or two. The show of force in Boston was in sharp contrast to what happened after an explosion at a Fertilizer Storage facility in West, Texas in the same week.

So what is going on? Why do actions which resulted in the death of 4 people in Boston consume infinitely more resources and attention than an almost simultaneous industrial disaster in Texas that has killed 3-10 times more people.

First let us be clear about one thing- the majority of people killed in both Boston, MA and West, TX were white.. so it was not about race. Nor were the events in Texas any less photogenic. The fertilizer storage facility explosion (100-300 tons of ammonium nitrate) in Texas was far more spectacular than the pathetically small pressure-cooker bombs in Boston. Heck even the aftermath of the Texas explosion was way more photogenic than the Boston blasts.

So why was the much bigger blast which killed many more people in West, TX not as worthy of media and government attention as the infinitesimally smaller ones in Boston, MA?

The answer to this question lies in the very nature of governance in hierarchical societies itself. Governance is not, and never has been, about providing public services, helping people or any of that ‘feel good’ BS which most people want to believe in. It is, and always has been, about the sole rights to kill people who live under that system. All forms of governance, “public” or “private”, are therefore about a collection of individuals who want to maintain their monopoly on lethal force. While natural disasters, infectious diseases and industrial disasters do kill far more people, they do not challenge the governmental monopoly on lethal force- at least in the mind of its subjects.. I mean ‘citizens’. Other people, groups or countries can however challenge the monopoly of any given government on lethal force- especially in the minds of its own subjects.. I mean ‘citizens’.

The actions of autonomous actors, such as “terrorists” and “criminals”, is a public demonstration of the fact that governmental power is not absolute.

The reaction of any government to such authority challenges is remarkably similar to how organized crime syndicates defend their territory or pimps hold onto their hoes. They go overboard with shows of violence and force designed to show the “protected” who is “really” in charge. It is about showing the “protected” that the ‘godfather’ or ‘pimp daddy’ cares about the “well-being” of those who live under his authority. Such shows have no correlation with the magnitude of the challenge and will always appear as overkill to the rational observer. But they are perfectly logical, if not rational, from the viewpoint of the ‘godfather’ or ‘pimp’ because power is really about maintaining monopoly over the use of lethal force at all costs.

So you see, shutting down a large city and using 10-20 thousand heavily armed men along with scores of APCs and Helicopters to find an injured 19-year old “terrorist” with a handgun or two makes a lot of sense if you want to show your subjects that you (and only you) are still in charge.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: April 18, 2013

April 18, 2013 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Average POV BJs: April 18, 2013 – Some hot, most average and some homely.

More Average POV BJs: April 18, 2013 – More plain-ish chicks playing the skin flute.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

MGTOW in Low-Fertility Societies

April 14, 2013 47 comments

Some of you might be aware of a phenomena known as MGTOW in which men slowly disconnect from society and have no intention or desire to fulfill traditional social roles or expectations. While the initial reasons behind this shift in developed countries might have been the loss of manufacturing jobs during the late-1980s coupled with the social and legal effects of feminism- that is no longer the case. MGTOW has often been characterized as ‘losers’ trying to justify their relative poverty and social ostracism. While I am not denying that the initial wave of MGTOWs might have done so out of necessity, it is clear that the ones who are going in that general direction now are a rather different and far more numerous group.

But before we go there, lets us quickly talk about why the impact of MGTOW was rather limited through most of human history and pre-history. As I have said before, societies where the average woman could expect more than three of her kids to reach adulthood functioned under a very different dynamic from those where women has replacement to sub-replacement fertility. Under the zero-sum conditions and mentalities that have characterized humans throughout their history, extra kids were just more fodder for the machine. High fertility rates ensured an endless supply of morons to scam, abuse, work to death and generally try to cover systemic mistakes. In such societies, a man who went MGTOW was not particularly missed and often quickly forgotten as the other human apes went about living their sad, shitty and meaningless lives. That plus the low-level of social organisation and technology meant that going MGTOW had almost no deleterious effects on wider society.

Things fundamentally changed once the average number of kids per woman dropped first below three and then under two. But why? What does sub-replacement fertility do to a society as far as it ability to function under the old scheme is concerned? The answer lies in the rapidly growing divergence between old assumptions and reality. Under the old assumptions (also known as culture and tradition) young people were disposable widgets who could be used, abused, scammed and exploited to levels that are fundamentally incompatible with civil society. The so-called ‘losers’ could be rapidly replaced with fresh and naive morons so that the cycle could on and on- with periodic disruptions such as war and pandemics.

But as the industrial revolution spread and changed societies all over the world, the underlying assumptions started changing. Initially there was a population explosion as technology increased the number of kids who would survive to adulthood. However within a generation of two, most people caught on to the changes and started having fewer and fewer kids. This reduction in fertility is now global and even ‘extra-religious’ middle-eastern countries have rates below three– something that would be unthinkable even two decades ago.

But what does all of this have to do with MGTOW? How do men slowly dropping out of society and traditional expectations affect the system at large?

The answer lies in understanding the principal delusions and main belief under which all societies operate. All societies are based around the idea that world around them is in some sort of stable and ‘natural’ equilibrium that is very hard to disrupt. While most people can accept the idea that a comet hitting earth or something along those lines will change their ‘reality’ forever, they are largely and willfully blind to less dramatic and slower changes in the conditions which make their ‘reality’ appear stable. The vast majority of people, especially those who grew up in a previous era, believe that the world never really changed since their teens and twenties. In their mind the world of today is different from the one they grew up in largely because of better gadgets, pills, cars and some superficial social changes.

Consequently, patterns of social organization and functioning are still based on assumptions that may have been true 60 or even 40 years ago. But what did society look like four or six decades ago? The average fertility for one was still comfortably above replacement as were lifetime jobs and expectations of socio-economic progress for all. A lot of how society operates today is still based on the continued validity of these assumptions. The older morons still believe that most people will still marry, have kids, live in suburban houses and endure long commutes to their meaningless jobs by cars. While that assumption had some validity as long as the last surplus generation with some hope, aka Baby Boomers, were heavily represented in the working age group- that is no longer the case.

However a significant part of the economy is also dependent on these assumptions holding true- or at least not changing too quickly. Entire sectors of the economy such as the education, housing, financial planning etc are completely dependent on the status quo as are many not-so-obvious ones such as tax revenue estimates, electoral politics and many others that appear unconnected (physician remuneration) but are not. Even assumptions about how people will work or not work, behave or not behave, think or not think are based on the old models being true. Which brings us to one of main, if not the main, assumption underlying belief in continuity of the status quo.

All developed, and almost all developing, societies are grounded in the continuity of a very specific male mindset. It is best described as a scenario where the vast majority of guys will slave away, sacrifice and generally endure abuse for a reasonable chance at getting some mediocre pussy, some respect and children. While that scenario played out very well in the age before effective contraception, feminism, unstable jobs and social atomization- that is no longer the case. The average woman thinks she is too good for the average guy and can even profit from such behavior. While men from older generations still believe in the validity of the older ways, the younger ones clearly do not and hence are far less likely to be married or in LTRs. It is hard to believe something if you can see evidence to the contrary at every turn and almost none to support it.

Today the majority of men disengaging from society are young, well-educated and aware of their odds. They are not 50-something guys ruined by their divorce after decades of believing the lies that society told them. Nor are the younger bunch disengaging from society to live a hermit-like existence. They are still connected to society to some extent, but they are certainly not engaged with it. They are very distrustful of the system and don’t care about its future. They are best seen as cynical and informed opportunists who are acting in their own self-interest.

But how will this change affect society? Will women beg men to take them back to an earlier time? Will society recognize the folly of its ways? In my opinion neither women nor society will move in a direction as large groups of people are fundamentally incapable of non-viral behavior. They will always try to optimize for the short-term even if doing so was almost certain to cause long-term problems.

So how does widespread MGTOW among the younger generation enter into this equation? and how does it affect the possible outcomes?

To understand this, you have to look at how entities faced with declining long-term prospects shore up their short-term. The usual and almost certain response involves more extensive rent-seeking and exploitation in the short-term. It is therefore not surprising that school systems want more money, universities keep on raising their tution costs, cars and houses become more expensive, physicians and hospitals demand more money etc. They do so even when it is very obvious that those paying for it are increasingly unable to do so. But the belief in, and addiction to, growth is so entrenched that they would rather eat their seed corn than try to fix the problem.

There are, of course, longer-term limits to such behaviors based in reality rather than perception. Eating your seed corn, cannibalizing your future and crapping on your future supporters works only as there is an adequate supply of fresh suckers to replace the dead, burnt out and cynical ones. But is that a realistic option in a world with low-fertility rates? Modes of behavior that work when the average woman had over three kids who made it to adulthood just don’t work in a world where the average woman has less than two kids.. period. Even computerization and extensive automation do not solve the problems as machines do not consume or circulate money.

To summarize, MGTOW among the younger generation of men will destabilize the current system by inducing it to react in a way that increases its short-term gains while simultaneously destroying its longer-term viability.

What do you think? Comments?

Digital Photography, the Internet and Pubic Hair Removal

April 7, 2013 11 comments

As many of you know, I have always preferred women with shaved or otherwise depilated genitals. In my opinion, the scalp and eyebrows are the only areas on a woman’s body where hair looks good. While there are men who prefer some hair on the pussy or a full bush, most of them are old and increasingly in the minority. However many older women still express surprise, genuine or not, that most men prefer hairless pussies on women. They are even more shocked that younger women almost without exception are willing to comply. At the beginning of this change (mid-1990s) many old-school feminists tried to shame men who preferred hairless pussies as creepy men who secretly lusted for sexually immature girls; when it is well-known that the hairless genitals of a sexually mature girl look rather different from those of one who has not yet matured.

But have you ever wondered why this change in pubic grooming habits occurred so fast? And why does it show no sign of abating? What changed?

While other ‘pundits’ have offered many explanations for this change ranging from evolutionary psychobabble to herd behavior- I believe the explanation is a bit more mundane. It begins with a few technological changes that occurred in the mid-1990s to early 2000s.

The first change was linked to how people viewed pornography and who created it. Prior to the rise of the internet, most porn was created by corporations and sold in the form of magazines or VCR tapes. The high cost of producing and distributing porn in the pre-internet days meant that a few people could have a disproportionate influence on what was available and what was not. The internet changed not only the ease and cost of viewing porn but also who could publish it. The result was that the amount and variety of porn accessible to the average person increased very substantially. An increase in competition resulted in the content become progressively more enticing.

Which brings us the next change- the technology used to shoot pornographic images and videos. Prior to the late 1990s, most people used photographic film or magnetic tape to capture photographs or videos. These older methods of image capture put two very interesting constraints on how things were done.

Using film to take photos or videos costs a not-insignificant amount of money and affects your willingness to take lots of pictures to find the best ones. Consequently taking decent quality pictures of naked chicks and sharing them was somewhat expensive and usually done by the more ‘established’ (traditionally minded) photographers. It is therefore no surprise that the number of photographers (amateur and professional) who shot porn really took of with the advent of digital cameras and Photoshop. It also resulted in porn becoming even more explicit and better lit, and stuff that looked OK in artsy porn now increasingly appeared disgusting.

We also cannot forget that analog VCR tapes had pretty low resolution and image quality. In the late 1990s the media for distributing video porn rapidly transitioned from VCR tapes to DVD and other digital formats. Once again, stuff that looked OK in low resolution and poorly illuminated scenes was now unacceptable. In combination with easier access and the increasingly explicit nature of the scenes- pubic hair on women porn stars became a liability. Few men want to see a curly and often soggy mat of unruly hair obscuring their view of the real action.

But why did porn star style pubic grooming become the norm among almost young women?

The answer to that question is linked to the changing self-image of women. In previous generations, even as late as the middle of Gen-X, women were able to exploit older social expectations about what women should be like to get the best of both worlds with the minimum of effort. However those born towards the end of Gen-X or later grew up in a world where they could no longer play both on both sides. Most chose to become fully liberated and independent girls who chased higher status cock rather than become the more traditional duplicitous cunt who settled down rather quickly but hated the guy.

The ability to give a decent blowjob and look good with their ankles behind their heads became more important than pretending to enjoy housework and raising children. It was therefore natural that most younger women would begin to start comparing themselves to porn stars. The advent of ubiquitous and high-resolution pornography also meant that their preferred male partners demanded that depilated look. Given that there are basically no significant downsides to going hairless down there, most of them just went along. In any case the two most common modes of removing pubic hair, shaving and waxing, were already being used by women to get rid of leg and armpit hair.

At this point, some of you are probably wondering if female pubic hair will ever come back in style. After all, we have seen trend-setting hipsters make retro-styled clothing cool again. So why wouldn’t something similar happen with female pubic grooming? I believe that such a change is unlikely to happen for one simple and often overlooked reason. There is really no downside to having a hairless pussy. Everything being equal, most men will prefer a woman with negligible to no hair on her genitals. Moreover, we live in an age where shaving is very easy and waxing is widely available. Both common methods are also exceptionally safe and quite inexpensive. It simply does not make much sense to go for a choice that has a downside than one which has basically none.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: April 6, 2013

April 6, 2013 1 comment

These links are NSFW.

POV BJs: April 06, 2013 – Amateurish POV BJs.

More POV BJs: April 06, 2013 – More amateurish POV BJs.

Even More POV BJs: April 06, 2013 – Even more amateurish POV BJs.

Enjoy! Comments?

PS: I often wonder if almost every other chick below 30 has photos of her sucking cock?

Categories: Uncategorized

The Insignificance of the ‘Loser’ Label in Atomized Societies

April 5, 2013 9 comments

One of the favorite recreational activities of human beings seems to involve labeling other people as ‘winners’ or ‘losers’ according to some external standards. While I have many theories about why people indulge in this particular zero-sum behavior and what it says about the human ‘mind’- those issues are best discussed in another post. In this one, I will look at another aspect of the ‘loser’ label.

Does the ‘loser’ label carry any weight or significance in mobile, highly atomized and technological societies- especially ones with a visibly crumbling social contract?

So let us first briefly talk about why people like to label some others as ‘losers’. The funny thing about such labels is that they have nothing to do with any objective reality. The reasons behind such labels have far more to do with attempts to dominate and destroy the lives of others. The next logical question is- does such labeling work? The answer is context sensitive and requires us to first consider the nature and technological level of the society as well as its degree of functionality. Societies that are tribal, inward looking and in which individuals have low geographical mobility are ideal settings for the ‘loser’ label. In such societies, there is a strong incentive to avoid the ‘loser’ label- even if the society is falling apart.

Now lets us turn our attention to societies with an industrial-revolution level of technology, decent but not great geographical mobility and some level of comprehension that their “reality” is not the only game in town. In such societies, the ‘loser’ label is significantly less effective at hurting a person as they can always move around and reinvent themselves or go to cities with a pre-existing population of similar minded people. As we move further up that road into societies as they exist in many, if not all, developed countries today- something even more peculiar occurs. The ‘loser’ label becomes close to worthless and may end up hurting the labeller than the labeled. But why? How does a strategy that was effective for tens of thousands of years suddenly become worthless? The answer lies in the changing nature of social interactions between an individual and the rest of society.

For most of human history- people lived, worked and interacted with others they had known for years or decades. They really did not have any other option. That is why things like reputation and perception by others around them mattered. This pattern of dependence on those in your physical vicinity and low geographical mobility started changing as the industrial revolution progressed. However most of your interactions were still with people in your immediate vicinity albeit in a place more to your liking.

A series of social changes within the last 30 years which created very high levels of social atomization and the spread of ubiquitous internet access have pushed things to another level.

Today trusting those who in previous eras could be expected to help you is a bad idea. The vast majority of people rightly don’t trust their parents, children, relatives, friends, employers, various social institutions and society itself to do anything close to the ‘right’ thing. Consequently, people prefer to spend a lot of time by themselves. It simply isn’t worth associating with people who are worse than useless in ‘real’ life. We also spend a lot of time online and can easily find people and communities of like-minded individuals who are far more entertaining to interact with- if still largely useless. But even that is changing and it now appears that online and often anonymous acquaintances are often more useful than those in your physical vicinity.

This ubiquitous communication-based mobility destroys the need for most personal interaction to a level that most people still cannot fathom. Today you can lead an OK life with very minimal inter-personal interactions. Apart from a few fake interactions for work-related purposes, getting some pussy and pretending to be “normal” etc- you can pretty much give up on ‘real’ life relationships without any adverse effects on your life. Indeed, the converse is true as it is no longer necessary to spend your waking hours thinking about what those useless morons around you are thinking, or not thinking. The best part is that you can often do that without having to move to your dream city or neighborhood.

It is now very easy to unplug from a dysfunctional society without any significant negative consequences.

The power of the ‘loser’ label was always directly proportional to how much you needed, or had to interact with, the people around you. A combination of social trends and technological possibilities have reduced the necessity to put oneself in that position. It follows that people will increasingly shun ‘real’ life interactions with useless morons in dysfunctional and deteriorating societies.

What do you think? Comments?