Archive

Archive for August, 2013

Why Asian Cultures are Devoted to Enforcing Anti-Happiness

August 27, 2013 146 comments

Let me begin by clarifying that this is not a hit piece against asians or their “cultures”. A lot of the issues I will talk about in this post are almost as prevalent in other “cultures” and pretty much all other large human organisations. So let us define what “cultures” are and are not.

Cultures are large and impersonal human organisations that survive by offering illusory membership benefits to the majority of its members in return for unquestioning obedience, conformity and sacrifice by those very same members.

The defining feature of every cult, religion, nation and culture throughout human history is that they are all scams to enslave, exploit and abuse the majority for the benefit of a very small minority and their flunkies. They have no interest in delivering on any of the promises they routinely make to the majority of their members and will actively resist attempts by others to do so. With that in mind, let me talk about the old observation that made me write this post. Years ago, I observed that many otherwise divergent asian cultures had a peculiar set of common behaviors and attitudes centered around happiness.

Asian cultures are almost fanatically devoted to promoting and enforcing anti-happiness.

Whether it is the exam and hierarchy dominated culture of China, the ‘everyone is watching you’ culture of Japan or the excessive family sacrifice dominated culture of India.. there is an almost deliberate effort to destroy the happiness of most individuals in each system. But to what end? Who benefits from all this hard work, status jockeying, enforced conformity and sacrifice? Has the average (or median) Chinese ever benefited from any of that hard work, rote memorizing and bowing to authority? What about the average Japanese? What about the average Indian?

Some of you might say that the economic growth and development experienced by Asian countries within the last 60-70 years is proof that the ‘asian way’ of anti-happiness produces good results. My counter question is: OK, so why did it not work for the previous few thousand years? Why did it take the industrial revolution, imported from outside, for asian countries to finally lift the living standards of their median members? And why didn’t the scientific and industrial revolutions start in countries that supposedly respected and rewarded learning and intelligence? Then there is also the question of why Asian countries resisted the scientific and industrial revolution for so long.

Even today educated Japanese people believe that the bloodlines of people descended from survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are tainted. Educated south Koreans obsess about blood groups and their Indian counterparts still take astrology a bit too seriously. Note that I am not claiming that people in western countries are any better when it comes to believing in bullshit. But should you not expect more from educated Asians, especially since they are typically more science literate. But what does any of this have to do with enforcing anti-happiness?

I recently wrote a post about how pleasing others progressively lost its value. In that post, I wrote about how the relationship between an individual and the larger group is fundamentally adversarial. Only external constraints and limitations can prevent either party for abusing the other to the point of non-viability. That is why small and personal groups can survive for tens of thousands of years while highly centralized and functional “nations” can unravel after the death of just one charismatic despot.

But what about malfunctional social systems? How long can they survive if they keep on exploiting, abusing and stealing from the majority of its members to benefit a small minority. The answer is dependent on the availability of new surplus suckers. Only the continuous creation, indoctrination and exploitation of more naive younger members can prop up dysfunctional social systems such as civilizations. Which brings us to the next logical question.. what is the exact role of parents and other older members of these systems in exploiting their own children.

In one of my previous posts, once again, I had speculated that the relationship between asian parents and their kids is most similar to that between an employer and his employees. But how is that different from a less dysfunctional parent-child relationship? What makes the ‘asian type’ parent-child relationship different from that in.. say hunter-gatherers? The answer lies in the balance of give and take for both parties. In more “primitive” societies parental investment is based in expectations of reciprocity rather than calculations of net economic gains from each offspring. To be clear, I am not implying that people in ‘primitive’ societies are intrinsically better. They just cannot get away with that shit..

So how does you maximize the net economic gain from each offspring? The answer is as simple as it is unpleasant. Happy and self-confident people do not make good slaves or indentured workers. The best workers are perpetually unhappy, insecure, fearful, paranoid and willing to hurt themselves for approval from their abusers.

The best way to create compliant workers to keep the ponzi scheme going is to constantly belittle your kids, compare them to others, guilt them into slaving for your benefit and interfere in their normal sexual development. It also helps to create mini-systems of worthless honorifics, enforcing proper slave behavior, participating in complicated but meaningless rituals and seeing patterns and omens in everything from numbers to cloud patterns.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 25, 2013

August 25, 2013 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Spanking Art: Aug 25, 2013 – Drawings of cuties getting spanked..

More Spanking Art: Aug 25, 2013 – More drawings of cuties getting spanked..

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Thinking is Not a Part of Human Evolution

August 24, 2013 9 comments

People have a strong and unfortunate tendency to see correlations, patterns, agency or purpose in what is essentially background noise or random events. That is why humans throughout the ages have tried to find meaning in everything from the patterns of used tea leaves, yarrow stalks and animal entrails to the relative positions of stars and planets at a given movement in time. Curiously, the “smartest” morons in any given group or society are often the most likely to believe in such bullshit because they have the biggest emotional and material investment in such speculations.

Today we like to believe that humanity has somehow moved beyond the eras when the appearance of comets and other astronomical phenomena were harbingers of plagues, earthquakes, storms or even armageddon. We desperately want to believe that ‘we’ are somehow better than ‘those’ primitive people who used to believe in witches, vampires or trolls. But is that really the case? Sure.. we no longer burn older women for witchcraft and movies based on fictional vampires make lots of money at the box office. On the other hand, any guy who interacts with unattended children is automatically seen as a dangerous pedophile and man-made global warming is supposed to be the biggest problem of our era.

The sad truth is that we have replaced one set of magically derived insights into the universe with another set of similarly derived ones.

Which brings me to the subject of “evolutionary psychology“. As some of you might know, I have previously written about some of the problems inherent in this “science” in posts such as link 1 and link 2. The gist of my previous criticisms can be summed up as-

We cannot look at human behavior through the lens of deterministic evolutionary “science” without acknowledging that the structure and dynamics of human societies throughout most of history and pre-history was very different from today.

This post attacks the pseudoscience of “evolutionary psychology” from a different angle by concentrating on one of its fundamental (but rarely stated) belief, namely that people actions and behavior are largely rational. To put it another way- Can evolutionary psychology explain human behavior and attitudes if neither are based in rational or semi-rational thought processes?

Some of you might say- but does it have to be that way? What if evolutionary psychology only explains the instinctual parts of human behavior? Maybe it is not meant to explain conscious and non-instinctual behavior? My answer is.. OK, but then purveyors of evolutionary psychology should not claim that it can explain complex and premeditated behavior. So the idea that women might be a bit more flirtatious when they are ovulating because of their hormonal status is reasonable. However theorizing that one racial group is intrinsically superior to another because of their reproductive strategies is utter bullshit and not based in evidence- as I will explain in more detail later.

But there remains a still deeper, if even less obvious problem, with evolutionary psychology. It implies (but again, never states explicitly) that evolution is a path towards some increasing levels of perfection. In that respect, evolutionary psychology sounds a bit too much like classical religious dogma. Some of you might see that as surprising, but I do not. A lot of the so-called soft “sciences” and even popular interpretations of hard sciences are secular version of theology. Evolutionary psychology has far more in common with moralistic legends and myths than anything approaching science, not unlike eugenics – its real predecessor.

So what do I mean when I say that evolution has no defined path or direction. Let me explain with an example.

Consider the evolution of differentiated multi-cellular animals. All currently available fossil and molecular biology based evidence suggests that such creatures first evolved somewhere between 1 billion to 600 million years ago. Now that is a bit late considering that unicellular life evolved almost 4 billion years ago. Why did it take evolution over 3 billion years to evolve differentiated multi-cellularity? Why was it so hard to evolve something that is not that big of a leap- especially when you compare complex single cell eukaryotes with simple but differentiated multicellular organisms?

The explanation that best fits other geological evidence goes something like this- it was all about the level of atmospheric oxygen. Until fairly recently in the earths geological history, say less than a billion years ago, the levels of atmospheric oxygen were too low to allow organisms with an aerobic metabolism and circulatory system to exist. The presence or absence of genes that made differentiated multi-cellularity possible was therefore largely irrelevant. They took off only after the atmospheric and hence dissolved aqueous concentrations of oxygen went over a certain level, probably 1/4th or 1/5th of what we have today.

If we had reached that point a couple of billion years before we did, differentiated multi-cellular organisms would also have evolved a couple of billion years before they did. Evolution filled niches that opened up because of changes in the environment or possibility matrix. The evolution of multi-cellular organisms were not inevitable, destined or preordained. The same is true for every other product of evolution from antibiotic resistant bacteria, human-specific pathogens to dinosaurs, mammals, aquatic mammal, monkeys and even humans.

There is no grand designer, master plan or even vague directional guidelines for the process of evolution. It is all about what can evolve, survive and reproduce in a given environment at a particular moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less.

Coming back to the subject of human evolution, one of the principal claims of “evolutionary psychology” is that human beings are interested in maximizing the survival and dispersal of their genes. But is that really the case? Are human beings consciously making decisions to maximize the number of kids they leave behind? Are people having sex for the purpose of procreation as opposed to just enjoying it? Do people obsessively maintain a scoreboard of the number of kids they have and their fates? Do they constantly think up new strategies to have more kids or have more successful kids? Do women spend their time coming up with detailed strategies for getting the seed of the right ‘alpha’ fathers and then finding the right ‘beta’ schlubs to provide for them?

The sad reality is that almost nobody, other than male aspies, spend that much time thinking or obsessing about reproductive success. Ironically, most woman have no interest in having sex with them, let alone have their kids.

People are just not the obsessive-compulsive, single-minded and deterministic calculating machines that “evolutionary psychology” wants you to believe. Human beings are just not into deep thinking, extensive strategizing or complex reasoning because doing all that takes away from actually living and enjoying life. Moreover none of that extensive planning guarantees you anything other than disappointment when unforeseen externalities piss all over your carefully laid plans.

In summary, evolutionary psychology is a ‘clever’ but futile attempt by white male aspies to make eugenics respectable- once again. Sadly for them, almost everybody else has better and more fun things to do in their lives. The best part is that all these aspies will never get the feminine approval and company they so desperately crave.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Feminism Succeeds While its Male Versions Always Fail

August 19, 2013 56 comments

The future of feminism is one of the most discussed, debated and written about topics on supposedly male-centered blogs. It seems that almost everyone from traditional CONservatives, alt-right morons, MRAs, game CONartists and followers of pretty much every other supposedly male-centric ideology want to see feminism fail. These people spend a lot of time coming up with scenarios under which their dreams would come true and try to interpret every new bit of information through their ideological blindfolds.. I mean goggles.

It is often hard to ignore the obvious parallels between them and those who believe in apocalypse-centered belief systems. Yet feminism keeps on winning more victories and expanding in its reach- even to parts of the world where it is relatively new and non-indigenous. And all of this brings us to a question that most people opposed to feminism seem to be incapable of answering with any significant degree of objectivity.

Why does feminism keep on winning and expanding its reach? and why do comparable male ideologies fail?

There are those who believe that the success of feminism is due to its support by international bankers or elites who are using it to further their own “super-secret” nefarious goals. Others see it as the result of “christian” men abandoning their supposed roles as “leaders” of the family. Yet other blame artificial female hormones in the water supply. I could go on and list many other equally peculiar and convoluted theories put forth to explain the success of feminism, but I am not in a mood for telling you any more fairy tales today. So let us look at the core elements of all these theories..

Most conventional theories about the success of feminism try to explain it as something “unnatural ” that is rammed down the throat of a reluctant society by some shady collection of small but “powerful” groups.

They want you to believe that the remarkable success of feminism is an “unnatural” aberration and somehow unsustainable without the constant and tireless efforts of shady elites or banal bureaucrats. But is that really the case? What is “natural” and what is “unnatural”? Is working in cubicles and living in suburban stucco boxes natural? Are nuclear families natural? Are corporations or “free markets” natural? Is capitalism natural? My point is that a lot of what these people strongly believe in is no less “natural” or “unnatural” than feminism.

Feminism is best seen as one of the eventualities of a larger systemic change that began with the industrial revolution.

But why is there no male equivalent of feminism? Sure, we have all heard about MRAs, alt-righters, MGTOW and PUAs- but none of them have been able to start a movement that is even remotely as successful as feminism. Now, I am sure that all of them have their own complex analysis of the factors underlying their repeated failures. But what if there is a far more straightforward and obvious reason for the failure of all these supposedly male-centric movements?

Here is my theory..

The incredible success of feminism (and popular support for it) comes down to the very basic membership criteria required to benefiting from its gains and victories. To put it another way- any woman can benefit from feminism. Sure.. women from some groups might benefit more than women from other groups, but in the end they are all better off than before. Being white, black, hispanic, asian, fat, thin, hot, ugly, hairy or smooth is secondary to being a woman- as far as benefiting from feminism is concerned. The beneficiary does not have to prove anything beyond their gender.

In contrast to the universal benefit provided by feminism, all of the supposedly male-centric movements want their members to prove that they are worthy or deserving of their membership. The CONservative morons want you to be religious and traditional, the alt-righters want you to be white, the game morons want you to white, buff, witty and so on. Isn’t it odd that people who cannot guarantee anything to their followers want so much from them.

But the bigger problem with all supposedly male-centric movements is a profound unwillingness to share the gains. It is about robbing others with the assistance of your followers and then stiffing those very followers instead of sharing the gains with them. Compare this to feminism, where the gains made by affluent white women in the earlier part of the feminist movement did not remain restricted to them and went on to benefit less affluent white and non-white women.

To summarize, feminism has been very successful because of the very low barriers for membership and universalization of benefits and gains for its members. The same is not true for supposedly male-centric movements and ideologies which have more in common with snake oil schemes and cults than anything vaguely resembling a coherent movement with long-term objectives.

What do you think? comments?

Was Ariel Castro a Monster or a Product of the System?

August 15, 2013 15 comments

The trial and conviction of Ariel Castro is the one of the more recent supposedly “shocking” crime stories to dominate american mass media. To summarize it in one sentence- the guy kidnapped, imprisoned and raped three young women for over a decade while simultaneously living an unremarkable and outwardly normal life.

As usual, talking heads in the mass media have come out with their own interpretations of what drove that guy to do what he did. There are those who see it as evidence for the existence of “true” evil, while others interpret it as the actions of a deranged and mentally ill man. Yet others see it evidence of a decline in neighborliness and social cohesion. However almost every single one of these talking heads and media pundits seem to agree that what Ariel Castro did was very abnormal, unusual and bizarre.

But were his actions abnormal, unusual or bizarre?

And this brings us to an important, though rarely asked, question- how do we determine whether any given behavior or action is normal or not? Are there any hard and fast rules for what is OK or not OK? Let us start by looking at human history over the last 100-150 years. During that period many behavior and actions most of us would today denounce as abhorrent, at least in social settings, were considered normal and socially acceptable.

Slavery and ‘Jim Crow’ was once totally acceptable and legal.. and some would say the later is still well and alive, if under a different name. Using child labor in hazardous industries was once very common and considered an integral part of capitalism. Killings millions of minorities, like the Jews and Armenians, was also totally legal and socially acceptable. Eugenics was once considered progressive social policy and sending millions of men to die for the sole purpose of lining the pockets (and fluffing the egos) of rich, old and decaying impotent white men was once considered normal. There are therefore no hard and clear boundaries to what is normal and what is not, regardless of what paid sophists (academics and intellectuals) say or write. And this brings us to the next important question that even fewer people want to ask..

Were the actions of Ariel Castro typical of American society in the 2000s or were they truly deviant?

Let us start with the part about kidnapping and imprisoning innocent people. As many of you know, extraordinary rendition of people suspected for “terrorism” is a routine and publicly accepted part of the war on “terror”. Almost nobody seems to care that most of the suspects apprehended under this extrajudicial way of doing things are either low-level members or innocent people who happen to have the same names as suspects. Then there is the whole business of secret prisons and torture facilities, often run in other countries by governments that are friendly or compliant with the USA. You might have also heard about Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. The point is that kidnapping and imprisoning innocent people is totally normal and acceptable in the USA, as long as they are not white.

But what about all that torture, sexual and psychological abuse that those three girls were subjected to. Surely that has no equivalent in the contemporary american society, or does it? To answer that question we have to look at who is imprisoned in the USA, for what reasons and under what conditions. Once again, some of you might be aware that the USA leads the world in incarcerating its own people- both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population. The rate of incarceration has also lost any linkage to the amount of violent crime committed. Moreover, a large and important sector of the american economy is now based upon arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people- all under the guise of ‘law and order’.

Then there is the question of who is incarcerated and who is not. The american system has no interest in prosecuting “white-collar” crime unless the suspects is non-white or a small time operator who made many powerful enemies. People who made billions by selling useless or harmful drugs that killed tens of thousands will never be jailed. Similarly, those who made billions and trillions by destroying the lives of millions through ‘legal’ financial engineering will never see the inside of a jail cell. Yet average or poor people who broke some inane and almost never enforced law are often dragged in court and sentenced to prison. Similarly low-level pot or crack dealers often end up in jail for years or decades even if they have not been violent. To put it another way, american “justice” is a bad joke that only a stupid, fat, impotent and decaying CONservative white moron can believe in.

The conditions in most american jails are also pretty grim. Most are overcrowded places with lots of internal violence, rape, drugs etc. Then there is the whole issue of solitary confinement, its effects and supermax prisons.

To put it another way, the american system pays millions of people to do far worse to millions others than what Ariel Castro did to those three women. It is too bad that Ariel Castro chose the occupation of a school bus driver and had to do those things “illegally” when he could done all that and more “legally” if he worked as a police or corrections “officer”. He could also have made much more money doing that than as a school bus driver.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 11, 2013

August 11, 2013 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

More Cuties with Toned Behinds: Aug 11, 2013 – Even more toned cuties with amazing butts

Cuties with Toned Behinds: Aug 11, 2013 – Slim and pretty cuties with toned butts

Reclining Smooth Spread Cuties: Aug 10, 2013 – Relaxed, smooth and spread cuties

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Highlights of Hugo Schwyzers August 9 Twitter Breakdown

August 10, 2013 13 comments

Some of you might have heard, or read, that a semi-famous attentionwhore aka Hugo Schwyzer suffered an online meltdown on Twitter yesterday. In case you don’t know much about Hugo Schwyzer or his latest public breakdown, the next three links might be helpful.

Hugo Schwyzer, ‘Feminist’ Professor, Is Having a Twitter Breakdown

Controversial “Feminist” Hugo Schwyzer Has A Very Public Meltdown

Hugo Schwyzer Has What Appears To Be Major Manic Episode On Twitter

His original “manic” tweets can still be seen on his account at @hugoschwyzer, if you are so inclined. But why go through all that trouble when I have copied the best ones for you guys. So, without further ado, here are his most revealing tweets arranged from the chronologically newest to oldest with a little extra commentary from yours truly.

I suffer from bipolar disease with psychotic features. But I do not think that truth erases the harm I have done. It puts in a context. 4:36 PM – 9 Aug 13

Sure, whatever you say Hugo.

When I quit the Good Men Project, I timed the announcement for maximum effect. I was such a manipulative jerk. 12:56 PM – 9 Aug 13

Unlike all those other times you were not?

I’ve been carrying the weight of so much, and then to carry the weight of so much dislike from so many of you was too much. 12:55 PM – 9 Aug 13

No, you got caught in your own web of lies. If you hadn’t been caught, none of this would have happened.

I lied about being sober as long as I was. I had relapsed before. 12:54 PM – 9 Aug 13

Who is surprised?

I am so sorry I wrote that terrible piece about my ex who was a lesbian. 12:53 PM – 9 Aug 13

The one you tried to kill? or the one you.. never mind.

That OK Cupid piece? Ally Foggg was right. I just wanted to look cool. 12:53 PM – 9 Aug 13

Are you referring to this masterpiece? No One is Entitled to Sex: Why We Should Mock the Nice Guys of OkCupid

I’m sorry that I kept mocking socially awkward men as creeps as a way of making myself look better. 12:52 PM – 9 Aug 13

Then again, most PUA and game bloggers are no different.

I am just so sorry. I am just so sorry. I lied and manipulated and cheated so many of you. 12:48 PM – 9 Aug 13

Who is surprised? really?

I did such awful things but I also wanted to belong to your community so badly. But my neediness and my stupidity pushed you away. 12:44 PM – 9 Aug 13

Which community? or maybe you just wanted to get into yet another hot, young and adoring piece of ass?

I did promote others but I secretly wanted to be THE male feminist. 12:41 PM – 9 Aug 13

Is anyone still surprised? Anyone?

Yes, I threw a lot of people under the bus. 12:41 PM – 9 Aug 13

Once again, that is common knowledge.

Oh, and the folks who are angry at me right now? Of course they know this is too little too late. 12:34 PM – 9 Aug 13

It has always been a little too late.

Being microinfamous sucks. 12:27 PM – 9 Aug 13

Ya, you won’t get that big book deal about how you finally saw the light.

Or find a better way of doing it because I did deserve it. I was a shitty writer and I was a fraud and I did try to kill my ex. 12:26 PM – 9 Aug 13

We already knew that, but it is nice to hear it from your own mouth.

The point is simple and clear and sane. I have been a self-aggrandizing fraud from day one. @studentactivism will tell you. 12:20 PM – 9 Aug 13

Come on, is anybody surprised by this ‘revelation’?

THIS IS REALLY ME. Hugo Benedict SChwyzer, born 1967, PhD UCLA. 12:17 PM – 9 Aug 13

OK

So yes, I sexted with a hooker. Yes, I wanted to have my students watch me screw James Deen. 12:17 PM – 9 Aug 13

Doesn’t that go against what you used to write and teach. Then again, academics are among the biggest hypocrites.

My diagnosis, by the way? Bipolar disease with psychotic features plus BPD. 12:15 PM – 9 Aug 13

It is too bad that being a CONman is not yet a recognized psychiatric diagnosis.

I loved being the most notorious bad boy male feminist out there. 12:13 PM – 9 Aug 13

OK

And I mocked the suffering of abuse survivors who were triggered by my work. 12:11 PM – 9 Aug 13

PUA and game blogs are no different, so you are in good company.

I’m a monstrous hypocrite. 12:10 PM – 9 Aug 13

We all knew!

…that I was sleeping with a 23 year-old. And sexting a 27 year-old. Not my students at least. 12:10 PM – 9 Aug 13

Surprisingly, that is actually an improvement over your past.

I cheated on my wife and pretended to be reformed. I wrote an article in the Atlantic condemning age-disparate relationships the same week. 12:09 PM – 9 Aug 13

Who finds this shocking or out of character? Does even your wife find that shocking? Come on..

I fucked porn stars I met through my classes. 12:06 PM – 9 Aug 13

Ya, we kinda guessed that.

If youo think these tweets are off, you’re so wrong. AT LAST the authentic Hugo. He’s here! No mask. 12:05 PM – 9 Aug 13

Is there a real human being underneath there? somewhere?

I appropriated the language of redemption, I knew which buttons to push, I used sex and charm and whiteness and it usually worked. 12:04 PM – 9 Aug 13

Yup, we know you are clever.

I built a brand (remember “off-brand”) on being something completely false to get approbation. 12:01 PM – 9 Aug 13

Is anybody surprised??

I am so so sorry that I let myself be like this. But I wanted atttention so f-ing bad. This was all about attention. 12:00 PM – 9 Aug 13

No, it was about more opportunities for sex with your students, groupies and hookers. Wanting attention is just a polite word for that.

I made my writing all about me. I centered my pain and my cock. and I sold it to you. 11:58 AM – 9 Aug 13

It was rather obvious to most readers of your dribbles and diatribes.

Which is how I got the gigs I got. I learned clickbait. Sometimes I fucked my way into a gig. 11:56 AM – 9 Aug 13

Am I the only one who is not surprised by this?

And yes, I networked like a motherfucker to get promoted. 11:55 AM – 9 Aug 13

Like every other academic. Welcome to the sophistic whore club!

I was never qualified to teach any gender studies courses. I talked my way into all these gigs. 11:55 AM – 9 Aug 13

If it makes you feel any better, so did everybody else.

I read a little bit about porn, and figured out how to make it a fun circus for all. 11:48 AM – 9 Aug 13

LOL

I read one book of Kimmel’s and made myself an expert on men and masculinity. 11:48 AM – 9 Aug 13

And that would be Jimmy Kimmel the comedian? Great..

I then built a career as a well-known online male feminist on fraudulent pretenses. My mania let me talk a good game. 11:46 AM – 9 Aug 13

Is that what they call lying these days?

My expertise is British medieval church history. I had no business teaching feminism, however well I may have taught it. 11:45 AM – 9 Aug 13

On the bright side, both are very subjective. You can make up any bullshit that sounds ‘right’ and nobody is wiser.

So the real story you all missed is that I talked my way into teaching women’s studies on the basis of 2 undergrad courses only. 11:43 AM – 9 Aug 13

Like most brown-nosing academics.

Oh, and here is his last tweet before the ‘manic’ episode. Note the date on this one.

It’s time for me to take an extended hiatus from social media and public writing. Looking forward to a long break and the next adventure. 6:46 PM – 17 Jul 13

So there you have it.. the latest attempts by attentionwhore extraordinaire Hugo Schwyzer to drum up some sympathy for him. Might write more about it in the near future.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, Dystopia, LOL

How Pleasing Others Progressively Lost its Value

August 8, 2013 20 comments

More than a few of my previous posts have explored the idea that “real life” relationships and friendships have now become useless or net negatives. I should also add that relationships at work, where an increasing number of people hang out to escape from their family and friends, are even more dysfunctional. This lack of functional and trustworthy relationships in all spheres of life is probably the major reason why people in ALL developed countries are clockwork oranges, though it is more plainly obvious in some countries (USA, Canada) than others (Germany, Japan).

But this post is not about how bad things are right now or will become in the near future. Instead, it will focus on how the current state of affairs became the norm.

Most popular theories of alienation revolve around the primary and secondary effects of money, capitalism, industrialization, post-industrialization or scientific progress on human society. In my opinion, the real cause of alienation runs much deeper than socio-economic developments in the last two centuries. Having said that, many aspects of ‘modern civilization’ have certainly made things worse. But what is this underlying problem I keep referring to? Why is it so hard, and perhaps impossible, to fix? And does it have any impact on what humans can evolve into or whether they have a future?

In it most basic form, the underlying problem is a fundamental contradiction that occurs in any group of self-aware biological individuals and can be summarized as-

Individual success in any group requires the individual to cheat, exploit, abuse and impoverish other members in that group. However the individual also simultaneously requires the trust, faith and active cooperation of those other members to survive and succeed. Conversely the group always benefits by exploiting its most vulnerable and naive members. However it also requires the trust, faith and active cooperation of those very same members to keep the gravy train rolling.

This fundamental contradiction is not a serious problem in primates and was largely a non-issue for humans as long as they lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers. In those settings, immediate feedback from the group and individuals prevented both from becoming especially abusive. Sure.. somebody could still become big chief, have more fancy headgear and a few more hoes. But there were real limits to what an individual could get away with in such groups. On the other side of this equation, the group itself could not neglect and abuse its most naive members as that was the quickest way to lose willing members.

The emergence of ‘civilization’ and therefore much larger groups disrupted the old pseudo-equilibrium by making it easier for the weaseliest individuals to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. This is not to say that all consequences for bad behavior disappeared and a significant minority of lords, rulers, kings and emperors did not die of natural causes. The lack of technology also limited long-term damage of such one-sided excesses and the high-fertility rates prevalent in those eras helped repair any serious damage to the system.

This new pseudo-equilibrium kept on playing itself, over and over again, for the next few thousand years. People kept on fighting largely useless wars, new prophets routinely offered alternate pathways to “salvation”, empires rose and fell, people kept on building palaces for evil and dead people, famine and epidemics killed large percentages of the population etc. But nothing really changed and the average person was as poor, miserable and insecure at the beginning of the classical civilization model (~ 3000 BC?) as towards its end (1800 AD?). To put it another way..

Most of recorded history is a glamorized account of jumping from one garbage pile into another.

But what does any of this have to do with why pleasing other people progressively lost its value? How does the course of ‘civilization’ reduce the value and utility of interpersonal relationships. And why does industrialization and its sequelae speed up that transition? To answer this question let us look at how living in increasingly larger societies transforms the nature, direction and utility of the ‘individual-group’ dynamic for the median person. But before we go there, let me ask you a related question.

Is human behavior mostly driven by what people truly believe in or what they can get away with?

If you look around with an objective mind, it is clear that most human behavior is driven by what people can get away with. The majority of people do not possess independent core beliefs strong enough to influence their actions. They just make up or copy the lies, delusions and justifications necessary to push on with their mindless agendas. Most people, including the so-called clever ‘high IQ”ones, are really no better than monkeys, dogs or viruses.

Which brings us to the real reason humans want to please other humans. It is about really about trying to ensure reciprocity. The core idea is that if you are nice to other people, a significant percentage of them might be nice to you or at least not become your adversaries. This strategy works very well in small to medium-sized communities where people know each other over long periods of time. But it also requires most important decisions to be made at the level of that community. Any serious break in the feedback cycle which allows weasels to slip away or non-local entities having a big say in important local decisions undermines the integrity of the system and that is why ‘civilization’ was the original cause of alienation.

But pre-industrial era civilizations were quite provincial. It was still pretty hard to pull of very large scams and escape to another continent or shield yourself with lawyers and contracts. Moreover the basic family, extended family and community networks were reasonably strong if somewhat frayed. Those networks gradually changed over the course of the industrial revolution and society became increasingly atomized, impersonal and dependent on relatively autonomous institutions.

Now there is nothing fundamentally wrong with any of these changes at the theoretical level. Their real life implementation is however rather problematic and destabilizing. For one, they require you to make the assumption that almost all people are basically decent and thoughtful human beings. As I said at near the beginning of this post, external and systemic constraints are the most reliable check on the opportunistic and myopic tendencies of humans- both as individuals and groups. Removing those constraints allows the most greedy, deceptive and murderous individuals to succeed and shape the institutions of that particular society.The success of the worst also encourages imitators and fence-sitters to jump in the fray thereby speeding the race to the bottom. Note that all of this occurs without any of traditional safety nets and feedback loops that characterized previous eras. This is the stage where a society tries to compensate for the loss in social cohesion by passing an every increasing number of laws, rules and regulations. It also tries to create new communal identities centered around flags, movies and sport teams.

In the end, almost nobody can trust anyone else. Even parents and children see each other as adversaries to be conned, exploited and scammed for the most trivial of gains. People start assigning precise monetary values to every basic human interaction and need. Almost everybody is willing to back stab their friends for the equivalent of a 20$ bill. Yet almost every member of such unstable and fragile societies try very hard to appear polite, decent and honest. They are almost obsessed with portraying themselves as civic-minded, law-abiding and thoughtful. It ultimately degenerates into a competition where people try to make and model the most ‘realistic’ mask of normality to cover the ugly reality beneath the mask.

You can either join in this mask making competition or you can admit the unpleasant reality to yourself. The first choice is easy because it is socially acceptable. The second requires you to be fairly misanthropic. Then again, what is the point of pleasing systemically dishonest people who do not care, or have any stake, in your well-being?

What do you think? Comments?

Riki Lindhome in Hell Baby: Shower Scene

August 7, 2013 16 comments

I am currently busy writing two or three long articles, so here is something to keep the readers engaged. This is one of more famous scene from the recently released movie Hell Baby. Riki is also one half of the comedy-folk duo “Garfunkel and Oates“.

The video clip is NSFW and she is very nude in it.

PornHub Link for those interested in it – Riki Lindhome in Hell Baby (2013)

Here are some screenshots from that clip..

Riki Lindhome in ‘Hell Baby’ : Topless – Topless Riki Lindhome from ‘Hell Baby’.

Riki Lindhome in ‘Hell Baby’ : Oiled and Topless – Oiled topless Riki Lindhome from ‘Hell Baby’.

Riki Lindhome in ‘Hell Baby’ : Oiled Frontal Nude – Oiled Frontal Riki Lindhome from ‘Hell Baby’.

Update 1: Also see screenshots of a recent nude scene by Kate Micucci in “Easy”.

Update 2: Screenshots of Riki Lindhome from ‘Under the Silver lake’ (2018).

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: LOL, Video

NSFW Links: Aug 02, 2013

August 2, 2013 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Smooth Slim Frontals: Aug 01, 2013 – Slim, young, toned and smooth cuties from the front

More Smooth Slim Frontals: Aug 01, 2013 – Some more slim, young, toned and smooth cuties

Smooth Frontal Cuties in BW: Aug 02, 2013 – Smooth Frontal Cuties in B&W

More Smooth Frontal Cuties in BW: Aug 02, 2013 – More smooth frontals of cuties in B&W

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized