Archive

Archive for September, 2013

The Peculiar Rationality of Aaron Alexis

September 29, 2013 5 comments

While some events deserve a prompt commentary, others are best explored once the proverbial dust has settled down. I am sure that all of you are familiar with the Washington Navy Yard shooting in which Aaron Alexis fatally shot twelve people, and injured three others, inside the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.

Though I had initially considered posting my thoughts about that event within a couple of days after it occurred, it seemed prudent to wait until a clearer picture of that incident and the guy who did it was available. In any case, the new bits of information have only bolstered my original views about Aaron Alexis. So let us begin by dissecting the first and most widespread belief about the shooting incident, namely that Aaron was suffering from a serious mental illness.

By now, most of you have heard media accounts of his supposed short temper, beliefs, odd behavior and demeanor. Many talking-heads in mainstream media are expressing feigned outrage at how an individual with his “history” could obtain a security clearance. However the idea that Aaron had serious mental illness is problematic for a very basic reason.

A diagnosis of mental illness, serious or otherwise, is highly subjective and dictated by prevailing socio-political fashions rather than any interest in the welfare of the diagnosed individual.

While I do not dispute the existence of depression, schizophrenia or hypomania that is severe enough to require medical treatment for helping the affected individual, it is all to clear that a lot of what is diagnosed as mental illness is anything but that. Antidepressants are routinely to people whose mental state is a normal reaction to a fucked up world. Kids with anything other than highly conformist behavior are diagnosed with ADHD. Male sport stars who sleep with many hot and willing women are diagnosed with “sex-addiction”. Nor is the trend new of labeling otherwise normal behavior new. Some of you might be aware that homosexuality was, as late as the early-1970s, considered to a mental disease.

The label of mental illness is therefore largely about an individual being someone other than a mindless, conformist, willing and disposable slave.

Face it.. would we be questioning the sanity of Aaron Alexis if he was a famous musician, actor or sportsman? Or what if he never shot those 12 people? What fraction of short-tempered introverts who believe in some conspiracy theory end up shooting a dozen people? Society is certainly not interested in the mental state of a white guy who wears an “official” uniform and ends up shooting some unarmed black guy because he matched the “description” of a suspect. Or what about some white guy serving the american armed forces who ends up shooting civilians in a country invaded by the USA to supposedly spread “democracy”?

Is there really a fundamental difference between a black guy killing 12 people in the USA and some white guy killing a similar number of civilians in some occupied middle-eastern country?

In both cases, the people killed were innocent. None of the victims were asking for it nor did they personally know the guy who killed them. Yet one event is seen as a great tragedy, a sign of poor vetting, inadequate security precautions and so on. The other event is just seen as an unfortunate accident in the supposedly altruistic projects of spreading “democracy” in the world.

So what is going on? Is someone mentally ill because they did not wear the right “uniform” when killing a dozen people? Or could it be the skin color of most victims? What about the skin color of the shooter? Or what about those who followed orders to kill hundreds or thousands of civilians who had never previously harmed them? Were the soldiers who followed such orders good soldiers, mass murderers, sociopaths, morons, mentally ill or all of the above? What about drone jockeys who blow up children unfortunate enough to be at the wrong wedding party in some godforsaken middle-eastern country?

It is clear that a lot of our supposedly cherished beliefs about “right” and “wrong” just don’t hold up under scrutiny.

Some of you might say “but.. but that guy believed the government was using radio waves to keep him awake at night and mess with his head. Isn’t this proof that he was nuts?” OK, let us look at some other beliefs that are considered normal and healthy. Take religion.. Christian evangelicals often talk about hearing or talking with a voice nobody else can hear. Are they widely seen as mentally ill? What about devout Muslims? Surely, interpreting two books written in an archaic form of Arabic years after the death of the guy who supposedly said all those things should create some doubt. But don’t many of that particular faith exhibit an unusual certainty about the divinity and veracity of what was written in those books, even if they are functionally illiterate. The same is true of Christian bible literalists and Hindu traditionalists who are sure about the validity of their beliefs even if most have not read the books they claim to believe in.

Believing that the government is using radio waves to keep a person awake at night is no more insane that living you life according to the words of some thousand-year old manuscript of dubious authorship.

This is not to say that the mental state of Aaron Alexis had no impact on his actions. Clearly the guy had ongoing problems with insomnia and may have suffered from infrequent hallucinations. However the intensity of his mental issues was not sufficient to affect his ability to perform his day job. The guy was not retarded or otherwise of sub-average intelligence. Nor was he particularly confrontational for a black guy. The shooting cannot therefore be explained away as the work of a seriously mentally ill individual. It was not especially random or poorly planned and he clearly wanted to go out after he had killed as many people as he could. His actions were rational, even if they were not conventional.

So what was going on in his mind?

Here is my analysis of the factors that might have led him to do what he did.It comes down to extrapolating the two dominant pathways in his life before the shooting. Note that they are not mutually exclusive. You may or may not agree with it and that is fine.

Pathway 1: He was becoming more mentally ill, but well enough to understand that.

Where do you draw the line between sanity and insanity? Is the distinction between the two that clear? Maybe he felt his mental stability was deteriorating and that this was his last chance to do what he always wanted. He was like almost all Americans, certainly aware, that we do not treat people deemed mentally ill well- especially if they are not rich, male and non-white. He was all three. How many of you would care for those you pretend to love if they were mentally ill, broke or homeless? Countless men like him are routinely left to allowed to wallow in poverty, prison or die. Maybe he understood his lack of good options and decided to take a few others out with him. Sure.. his victims did not deserve to die but neither did he deserve the almost inevitable and totally avoidable suffering inflicted by a profit-minded society on people like him.

Pathway 2: He was tired of life and wanted to exit on his own terms.

Everything we know about him to date suggests that he was a lonely and somewhat socially awkward guy. Whether this was due to his personality or mental illness is anyone’s guess. Maybe he felt that his life was at a dead-end and he had no future worth living for. It is not as if he was going to get a stable job, meet the love of his life and live happily ever after. Some might say that a guy “like him” should be grateful for having a job, any job, in the first place. Well.. as it turns out, he thought differently and there is not much anybody can do about it now. Those of you who feel he was an ungrateful black guy are certainly welcome to go and tell that to him in the afterlife.

In conclusion, the primary motivation for his actions were rational regardless of the secondary precipitating factors.

What do you think? Comments?

Offered Without Commentary: Sep 24, 2013

September 24, 2013 12 comments

We keep on hearing a lot of opinions about the famous/infamous dance by Miley Cyrus at the 2013 VMA. But let us put that performance in some perspective. Here is a YouTube clip of the 10-year old winner of her category in some national dance competition.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Sep 21, 2013

September 21, 2013 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Sweet Nubile Cuties: Sep 21, 2013 – Nubile cuties with cute faces.

More Sweet Nubile Cuties: Sep 21, 2013 – More nubile cuties with cute faces.

Even More Sweet Nubile Cuties: Sep 21, 2013 – Even more cute faced nubile cuties.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Professions Usually Worsen Problems They were Meant to Solve

September 19, 2013 24 comments

The interactions of human motivations, capitalism, perverse incentives, fake jobs, technology and system inertia have been the subject of many of my older posts. It has been clear to me, for some time now, that nothing good can come out this mixture- except perhaps by accident. However most people still do not subscribe to my worldview largely because it is somewhat depressing. They would rather keep on believing ambient comforting lies than think for themselves. But I am not giving up and here is another attempt to make a few more people question their beliefs. It starts with a simple question.

Why do professions created to solve problems often end up causing more damage than the problems themselves?

Here are a few contemporary examples to better illustrate my point. Take school teachers.. why has increased funding and employment in the pre-university education sector not increased the quality of education? Why do teachers keep on insisting that more money, power, rules and guidelines will solve the problems? What is the problem anyway? Are human beings naturally not inclined to learn new and personally useful skills? Are children not naturally excellent observers, very curious and enthusiastic? So why do most of them hate school? Could it possible that schools, in their current form, discourage learning? Is it a coincidence that school architecture and procedures increasingly resemble prisons?

Or consider the legal profession.. why has public perceptions about the level of judicial dysfunction gone up in parallel with the number of people employed in that sector? Shouldn’t an increase in the number of people employed to solve a set of problems result in their diminution? Shouldn’t spending a larger fraction of your financial resources on legal costs make things flow more smoothly? So why do we end up with an ever-increasing number of laws, bylaws, rules and regulations whose sole purpose is to make things stickier? Why has the size of even simple contracts exploded within the last 30 years? Why are most ‘criminal’ convictions in the USA based on plea deals and mandatory minimums rather than something old-fashioned like a trial?

The medical profession provides more examples of this problem in action. Why has most of the money invested and spent within the last 30 years on medical care and research not yielded any large-scale improvements in outcomes? Why is most of the health care money spent on procedure and equipment of dubious efficacy, while we ignore problems such as development of newer antibiotics, better vaccines and truly innovative ways to treat diseases that are as yet untreatable? Why has all the money spent on finding a cure for various types of cancers, Alzheimers, Parkinsonism etc not yielded anything worthwhile after two or three decades? Why have rates of obesity and other metabolic illness gone up at the same rate as people adopting the dietary guidelines created by credentialed “experts”? Why are medical mistakes officially the 3rd and probably the 2nd largest cause of death?

Professions involved in maintaining “law and order” provide yet more examples of the problem. Why do we keep hiring more cops and other assorted law-critters when the rates of minor crime have been falling for over two decades- almost all over the world. Why are people not involved in gangs more likely to killed by a cop than a criminal belonging to some gang? What about all those barely reported unnatural deaths in judicial custody or jail? What about property forfeiture of innocents, rigged red-light cameras and a host of other rent-seeking behaviors? Does any of this increase the safety of most people? What percentage of simple property crimes do cops solve anyway? Do they protect people from large-scale financial fraud and economic crimes?

But is this a relatively new phenomena?

Certain vocations and professions have, since the beginning of human history, almost always worsened the problems they were supposed to solve.

Emperors, kings, dukes and feudal lords have been promising protection and peace to their subjects since the beginning of history. Oddly enough, things almost never worked out that way. Recorded history is full of accounts of constant skirmishes, mass persecutions, disastrous wars, endless palace intrigues and the construction of costly palaces or tombs. It is very doubtful if the presence of rulers improved the security of their subjects and the converse is likely true. Yet all these rulers claimed divine, semi-divine or otherwise special ancestry and fitness to rule.

Priest are another example of a professional class that promised people everything from a great afterlife to seeking divine intervention for stopping plagues, preventing earthquakes and ensuring bountiful harvests. Today we know that all those sacrifices, prayers, chants and other assorted bullshit were utterly useless and often counterproductive. Let us also not forget the role of the priestly class in supporting wars based on whose invisible sky-friend could piss further. Did I also mention that priests became priests through a lengthy process of being born to the ‘right’ parents, having the ‘right’ mentors and spouting the ‘right’ brand of lies and bullshit.

Scholars, philosophers and intellectuals are yet another example of a group that has not delivered. Under the guise of investigating the human condition, these sophists came up clever arguments to justify the oppression and abusive behavior of whoever paid their salary. The world would be no worse of if every ancient philosopher of every single tradition never existed. The same can be said about ancient scholars who were the PR guys and talking heads of their eras.

So, is there a link between the politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, physicians and cops from our era with the various rulers, priests and scholars of previous eras?

Yes, there is and it is called credentialism. Vocations and professions that require extensive credentialization and approval from prior members almost always tend to create far more problems than they are supposed to solve, if they can even do that. But why is that so? Isn’t credentialism meant to keep incompetent people out and promote people from within based on their merit?

While the founding myth and official story line about credentialism often portray it as the best way to keep incompetent people out of important and financially lucrative professions- it is anything but that in real life. To understand the “why” let us have a brief look at the psyche of people who crave endless amounts of power, prestige and money. Such individuals are typically the most self-centered, narcissistic and sociopathic individuals in any given society. They are also the least altruistic and humane in that system.

The very idea that such people are even capable of caring about anybody but themselves is laughable.

Credentialism is therefore just a scam to protect rent-seeking vocations by making them look official and natural. Insiders to any credentialism-based scam have no interest in actually solving problems or making the lives of other people better. It largely exists to put a pleasant facade on what would otherwise be seen as parasitic extortion and abuse. It allows the parasites to maintain the status quo and keep on exploit their position. The money and status obtained through credentialism also allows them to temporarily insulate themselves from the adverse consequences of their actions.

At this point, I can almost hear some of you saying- “but.. but would you let an unlicensed surgeon perform surgery on you?” Here is my answer.. when I talk about credentialism I am also referring to restricted admission in the vocation or profession. You cannot compare somebody who barely has some experience to someone who was admitted and trained in that vocation or profession. Furthermore, as I said before, medical mistakes are the 3rd or 2nd largest cause of death. So the original question is meaningless.

A far better question would be- “Is a surgeon trained in a well-funded medical program in India as competent as one trained in a similar program in USA? and my answer to that question is – Yes. The same is also true of individuals who got their degrees from a state university rather than some ivy league institution. The presence or absence of specific paperwork is really about optimal rent-seeking rather than the ability of an individual to perform a particular job.

Having said that, a larger problem still remains. How can you get people to reduce the incidence of problems if their remuneration is linked to the number of problems they supposedly solve? Wouldn’t eliminating problems also eliminate their cushy jobs? Furthermore, creating new problems is the easiest way to increase your income- regardless of their effect on the rest of society.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Sep 14, 2013

September 14, 2013 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Ample Bottomed Cuties: Sep 14, 2013 – Cuties with the right amount of junk.

Beach Themed Nubiles: Sep 14, 2013 – Slim and nubile cuties at or near the seashore.

Pretty Nubile Cuties: Sep 14, 2013 – Slim, pretty and young cuties.

More Pretty Nubile Cuties: Sep 14, 2013 – More pretty, slim and young cuties.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Two Recent Examples of False Class Consciousness

September 11, 2013 25 comments

One of my biggest issues with supporters of the alt-right, CONservative and LIEbertarian viewpoints is that they are almost always the least likely to benefit from real-life implementation of the viewpoints they so enthusiastically espouse. The average supporter of such viewpoints is typically a redneck, working class or barely middle-class white guy without a lot of education, connections, real life experience and analytic intelligence. Eventually some of them grow up and get smart, but most do not and keep on supporting and helping those who oppress them- aka false class consciousness.

Let me show you two recent examples of this phenomena, as taken from the recent tweets of Matt Forney.

The first example involves the exposure and dismissal of Pax Dickinson. The story, as far as we know to date, is that some douchy fratboy who got his highfalutin job through having the right contacts spent a lot of time tweeting about women, gays, blacks etc. Some of you might say, but.. but.. wasn’t he some ‘brogrammer’ and CTO of some media outfit? Doesn’t he have to be competent at something to get that job in the first place. My answer is sure.. predominately administrative jobs require one to be very good at deceiving, backstabbing, cheating, scamming and gaming others. The hard skills are however pretty much optional, even if you are a CTO.

Now let us see how Matt responded to this news. Here are some of his more relevant tweets.

#standwithpax because you shouldn’t lose your job because of your completely unrelated political views. 3:31 PM – 10 Sep 13

#standwithpax because if you can’t exercise freedom of speech without a lynch mob coming after you, then freedom of speech does not exist. 3:34 PM – 10 Sep 13

#standwithpax Seriously you morons, you think Nick Denton cares about you? He and Valleywag just wanted to hurt a competitor. 3:44 PM – 10 Sep 13

@rooshv “First they came for the anti-feminists, and I did not speak up because I was not an anti-feminist…” 4:13 PM – 11 Sep 13

Matt also re-tweeted some stuff by RooshV in support of Pax, but that is beside the point. Here is my problem with all this support for Pax- Is it really about the freedom of speech? Let us be clear about a few things- no one has arrested Pax, slapped him with some heavy fine or otherwise fucked him over.. yet. There are no calls for actual human sacrifice and so far no body has shot him or beat him up. It is also not as if Pax is some poor marginal guy who lives from one paycheck to the other. Furthermore, his tweets were relevant to his job function as he was also supposedly involved in recruiting new talent for that company. And this brings me to my real problem with Matts support for Pax.

What is in it for Matt?

I can totally understand if Matt supported the unpopular opinions of a fellow blogger or somebody he knew in person. I can also understand support for a cause greater than a person. But Pax? Seriously? The only way Matt and Pax would ever meet is Matt chauffeuring Pax around a golf course or resort. Or maybe Matt working as a security guard in the building where Pax worked. The unfortunate reality is that Pax and Matt are never going to meet as equal human beings under the current system- even if Matt is smarter and more competent than Pax. Ya, all that talk about meritocracy in silicon valley is bullshit. Sure, merit can get you an entry-level job so that you slave away to make some connected fratboy even richer. But that is about it. You will never rise beyond a certain level in any company, irrespective of your work ethic, competence, intelligence or creativity.

Simply put, Matts support for Pax is as rational as a concentration camp Jew supporting Nazis. It might buy you a few extra days or weeks, but it won’t change the eventual outcome.

Moving on, Matt also tweeted about Bill de Blasio winning the democratic primary for the upcoming mayoral election in NYC. So let us have a look at some of Matts tweets about that bit of news.

Bill de Blasio for Mayor: because who needs safe streets and low crime rates anyway? #NYC2013 #crockthevote 10:23 PM – 10 Sep 13

Bill de Blasio for Mayor: because why should we let Chicago and Detroit have all the murder and mayhem? #NYC2013 #crockthevote 10:30 PM – 10 Sep 13

If de Blasio becomes mayor, watch for an influx of vapid HuffPo/Daily Beast columns about Chirlane’s “beauty” and “style.” 11:25 AM – 11 Sep 13

Let us, for a moment, imagine that electing Bill de Blasio will somehow result in NYC returning to the ‘exciting’ 1970s and 1980s. Let us also imagine that ‘black crime’ goes up and the streets of NYC suddenly become more grittier. My question is – so what? Does the destruction of Bloombergs financial elite and police state favoring legacy really make things any worse for Matt? Given that Matt is not Jewish, rich or connected- he is pretty much screwed in the NYC of today. Sure.. he could find some job that paid enough to live paycheck to paycheck. Maybe he might even get a luck break and make it in the rapidly shrinking middle-class of NYC. But is he really going to benefit from the policies of Giuliani and Bloomberg? Is he going to get a job or vocation that allows him to make millions per year. Will he be ever able to afford living in one of those fancy penthouse suites? In the best case scenario, he might see a few of them from the inside.. a few times each year. He will be lucky to, one day, own a small shitty house in NJ and commute daily to Manhattan.

So here is my free, and unsolicited, advise to Matt and others like him. Always think about what something means for you, rather than some fictional version of yourself. Carrying free water for rich assholes will never get you anywhere and they will never help you or even remember your help- even if you have the same skin color or last name as them. The alternative is that you could just keep on doing what you are doing now and then realize that you got conned a couple of decades from now.

What do you think? comments?

Eliminating Vectors is More Important than Eradicating Pathogens: 2

September 8, 2013 16 comments

Continuing onward from the previous part of this series, let me describe the long process via which I reached the conclusion that human vectors are far more problematic than pathogenic humans. Part of this journey has been described in one of my older articles, Nazis as Corporate Drones, in which I proposed that the mindset of loyal Nazis was remarkably similar to the ideal american corporate drone. But why? Why do some people make loyal Nazis or good corporate drones, while many others just don’t fit in such institutions or care about their assigned tasks. A glimpse into what makes loyal Nazis and corporate drones can be found later on in the same article and I quote..

It does not take a genius to figure out that moderately ambitious personalities with little ability for independent thought, but just enough brain-power to carry the task they have been assigned, will flourish in such institutions.

It is however clear that being an average, mediocre and conformist simpleton is only part of what makes a loyal Nazi or corporate drone. If that was not so, almost any guy on the street could be molded into a mindless loyal Nazi or corporate drone. But that is not the case and history shows that most people make incompetent Nazis or corporate drones. That is not to say they are stupid. Indeed, those who do it inefficiently understand the nature of the job much better than those who do it efficiently.

So what are the extra conditions, predispositions and circumstances necessary to create loyal Nazis or corporate drones?

Interviews of those who committed genocide in the name of the Third Reich are a good place to start. I have read many transcripts and seen many interviews of such people and here are some of my observations. The vast majority of those who participated in such activities appear very normal, even ‘extra-normal’, on multiple levels. Almost all of them had families, wives, children and dogs. You can see photographs of them enjoying picnics, fishing, beach holidays, family functions during the same time they were killing thousands of unarmed people in their day jobs. They do not appear to have any conventional mental illness nor do they display any real remorse, guilt or conscience for what they were doing. They seemed to more concerned about their promotions, living quarters and family lives.

Now some of you might say that they were just trying to make the best of what was at hand. Maybe they were trying to protect their minds from the realities of what they were doing. I could buy that argument but for one very glaring problem- they were very enthusiastic, motivated and diligent at performing their ‘daytime’ jobs. Many had great pride at their efficiency at doing what they did. That is most unlike a person forced to kill someone else to stay alive. And one more thing- the behavior, attitudes, mindset and worldview of the average loyal Nazi was very reminiscent of the average faithful Mormon, something we will revisit later on in this series.

It is especially fascinating to see that the moderate intelligence, blind obedience to large institutions, child-like faith in authority, clean-cut lifestyle, strong family ties and extreme conformism was especially prevalent in loyal Nazis as it is in american corporate drones and faithful mormons. But was that just a simple coincidence or does it point to something else? What about other genocides during the 20th century? Were the perpetrators mentally similar to the loyal Nazis or corporate drones?

To answer that question, let us look at the other great genocide of the 1930s-1940s aka Japanese rule in China. While the Japanese killed more Chinese than the Nazis killed Jews, it is not as well documented as the later one. To complicate matters further, most Japanese still do not accept that what they did was wrong and veterans of that era are very reluctant to talk about their actions. However even a basic understanding of Japanese history and society would suggest that Japanese are not especially violent in Japan. Indeed, it is and has been a remarkably safe place as long as stable governance exists. So what accounts for the most peculiar Japanese behavior in China during the 1930s-1940s?

Here is my theory.. the average Japanese had all the features of a loyal Nazi. Everything from the moderate intelligence, blind obedience to large institutions, child-like faith in authority, clean-cut lifestyle, strong family ties and extreme conformism was even more prevalent in Japanese society than WW2-era German society. Curiously, they also make excellent corporate drones. Coincidence? I think not! The same is also true for the loyal british bureaucrats and soldiers who slaved away and committed various genocides for the empire. They were all cut from the same metaphoric cloth.

In the next part I shall explore how all of this fits into the world of today.

What do you think? Comments?

Eliminating Vectors is More Important than Eradicating Pathogens: 1

September 7, 2013 16 comments

The transmission of infectious diseases from one host to another can occur in a number of ways. Some involve direct physical contact between the two hosts or their bodily secretions and excretions, others involve an inanimate intermediary such as water, food or soil. A small but significant number of pathogens utilize a temporary host, often of a different species from their main host, to jump from one host to the other.

Temporary or secondary hosts that facilitate the transmission of a pathogen are known as vectors.

Most of you are aware that certain genera of mosquitoes transmit malaria and a number of other viruses and parasites. Fleas transmit diseases such as plague and epidemic typhus. Houseflies facilitate the spread of many pathogens that causes gastrointestinal illnesses and ticks transmit the bacterial species that cause lyme disease among many others. I could go on, but this post is about the dynamics of human societies, not medical microbiology.

In the past, I have often compared the true elite (the 0.1 or 0.01%) to mindless pathogens whose purpose for existence seems to center around stealing from and damaging their hosts, regardless of the long-term consequences. But how do they do that, given their rather small numbers both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total population? Did any genocidal tyrant ever personally kill even a tiny fraction of the people who died under their rule? How many Jews did Hitler kill with his own hands? what about Stalin? How many people did Stalin kill with his own hands? How many Indians did Churchill personally kill? In all of the above cases, and every other instance of genocide, those who gave the orders were almost never involved in carrying them out.

The same is true for leaders who order their nations into war, CEOs who fire thousands of people, bankers who steal trillions from millions.

The success of such ‘endeavors’ depended around their ability to commandeer the temporary loyalty of a minority of the population who carry out their orders and wishes. Without these people, or should we say.. vectors, the malicious wishes and desires of the elite would be little more than pipe-dreams. They would have no ability to influence anything beyond their immediate environment and even then they would probably be quickly killed off by the first few people they tried to harm or steal from.

The elite in every social system are therefore completely dependent upon the continued existence of a much larger number, though still a minority, of vectors to carry out their malicious designs. I should also point out that exterminating one group of elites often results in another bunch filling their spots and continuing the malicious behavior, if in a somewhat different direction.

Exterminating vectors and their progeny is the only foolproof way of destroying elites.

But who are these vectors in human societies? How can you identify them? How did they arise in the first place? What motivates them? What is going on inside their little heads? What is their survival strategy? How do you break them? How do you destroy them? How do you prevent their reemergence?

Vectors in human society can be identified by the nature of their jobs, their level of enthusiasm for their vocations and the underlying motivation for doing whatever they do. Vectors work in jobs, occupations and vocations that directly (or indirectly) serve the elites, implement their dystopic visions, enforce their ideas and collect rent for them. Vectors are also distinguishable from other non-elites by an unusually high degree of enthusiasm towards their often openly dystopic and inhumane vocations. Many of them are true believers in the inherent goodness of whatever they do and believe that the elites really embody virtues. Almost every single vector sees himself (or herself) as morally superior to the people they are robbing, abusing and killing.

One of the most peculiar and distinguishing feature of vectors is their high levels of devotion to their own family and children. All vectors are great “family” men and women. They invest a lot of themselves in the upbringing of their progeny. As you will see later on, this presents a particularly interesting and exploitable vulnerability.

In the next part of this series, I shall list the most commonly encountered vector subtypes, what they do, why they do it and what motivates them.

What do you think? Comments?