Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology > Most People Around You Don’t Deserve Sympathy or Compassion: 1

Most People Around You Don’t Deserve Sympathy or Compassion: 1

Questions surrounding the nature of impersonal society and “civilization” (such as link 1, link 2) have a habit of popping up in my posts. While they can sometimes appear repetitious, it is hard to ignore them since they are also highly relevant to many facets of your day-to-day existence. One related topic, which I have also touched upon in previous posts (such as link 3, link 4), concerns the effect of changing circumstances and realities on the individual-group dynamic.

Do you really have an obligation or duty towards any human group that is incapable of, or unwilling to, fulfill its end of the deal- explicit and implicit?

As I have said before, humans are not mindless eusocial creatures like ants or bees. Formation and cohesion of human groups is based on reciprocity (or a promise thereof) between each individual in it and the rest of that group. To put it another way, real cooperation with your group only makes sense if you have a very high chance of receiving what was promised to you (explicitly and implicitly) in the first place. One of the many reasons that I rightly consider CONservatives to be less than subhuman is their repeated parroting of the “society does not owe you anything” meme. Now I know exactly what they are trying to, but don’t have the brains or balls, to say- but that is best discussed in another post. This one will focus on something different and explain my insight through a series of thought experiments.

The first one occurred to me, many years ago, at a time when I had just started using escorts. The circumstances surrounding what I am going to talk about have been mentioned in previous posts (link 5, link 6). It centers around an interesting paradox – I could get high quality paid sex (including frequent freebies) from attractive and reasonably priced escorts while I was being simultaneously rejected by far more plain, dumpy and mediocre women. So what was going on? Well.. in my opinion, it was largely about the belief of those mediocre women in their intrinsic racial superiority, even if there was no evidence to support it. Then again, most humans have an almost infinite capacity for self delusion- something that I will write more about in another post. But it does raise an even more important, if almost never asked, question that is best framed as a thought experiment.

What if all those women, and guys like them, disappeared from the face of the earth?

While I have talked about similar in a previous post, this one tackles a different question. Does the continued existence of people you do not particularly care about matter to you? Also, under what condition or circumstances would that answer change- either way? If you think through my questions systematically and rationally, you will arrive to a somewhat disquieting answer.

In an impersonal and atomized society, the existence of other people matters only so far as it translates into a high probability of serving your own needs.

The demise of anyone whose existence or actions do not serve your needs or desires is, at best, inconsequential. The reader might wonder if the demise of people who did something important for you, but not in a very obvious manner, would be detrimental. The short answer to that question is- perhaps, but not really. Let me explain what I am talking about through one somewhat tasteless thought experiment.

Imagine a situation in which 80-90% or even 100% of white physicians and surgeons in the USA died within a week. Would it matter? Well.. it would certainly matter in the very short term- perhaps a few weeks or months at most. However, their positions would almost certainly be filled through the mass importation of equally competent non-white physicians. Moreover, people who work under physicians perform most of the actual work in healthcare. So the somewhat longer answer is as follows: short-term disruptions seldom translate into long-term disruptions. The only time such large-scale disruptions translate into long-term effects is when those who became extinct had some unique ability that their successors are incapable of developing. In the case of physicians or surgeons, that is simply not the case. A non-white person with similar education, hours of experience and access to technology will do just as good a job as a white person, and the same is true of every job, profession and vocation. And this brings us to another disquieting idea.

People whose utility to others is defined by their jobs are completely replaceable and fungible.

The same is also true of employers- more specifically the people you work under. In an era where people do not have stable jobs, the demise of your immediate superior in the corporate hierarchy is largely irrelevant as most people in that position have no interest in helping you as a person. You could even replace them with a similar looking person and nobody would notice or care. This is especially true in countries such as the USA where all corporations are slow death-marches, as far as most of their employees are concerned. One could make the same case for other institutions, from universities and research institutes to schools and sports leagues. Do you really think that the sudden demise of all the “top” scientists from “prestigious” universities and institutes would somehow set our knowledge of science or progress back? Heck, if anything it might have the opposite effect by removing a lot of politically connected and uncreative courtier-types.?

In an atomized society there are no rational reasons to feel any sympathy or compassion for people who just happen to exist around you.

Now, you might say- this is cold, heartless and inhuman. Well.. perhaps, but it is rational. More importantly, is your experience any different? How many people you have worked with can you trust to not screw you over? What about any person or corporation that has ever employed you? Or what about the women you might have married? Can you really trust them to not screw you over for ego or minor financial gains? What about the government that claims to protect you from “all those bad people” if you just agree to go deeper into bonded servitude?

Perhaps you might want to reevaluate your interactions with people and institutions around you. There is no reason to be loyal, kind or even fair to people and institutions who abuse your trust in every possible way and at every possible turn.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. daliwali
    October 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Many people actually desire to be corporate slaves. Indeed, businesses do treat them as replaceable objects just like parts of a machine whose utility is to be maximized, even if they try to give the wrong impression that the workplace is fun and social with their open-floor office plans, nerf guns, and catered company lunches. Given that the alternative is poverty in most societies, it’s the less bad option, but it is delusional and narcissistic to look down on the poor for rejecting wage slavery.

    I am not so sure about that. Most people desire a stable lifestyle, not slavery. For many decades, it was possible to achieve that by becoming a corporate slave. However, that is no longer the case. Yet, you still see many average morons keeping up their end of the deal.

  2. illsker
    October 5, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Long time reader, first time commenter. Funny how people seem to get most of their self-worth from their measly contribution to a society that’s widely known to be immensely corrupt. As the machine becomes more and more unforgiving and the world gets less and less personable people will value themselves based off having employment(what else do they really have?). “NEETs” get the most criticism in society yet people who are holding these corporate jobs are the one actively making society worse. They even continue to insult people trying to live a minimalistic lifestyle outside the corporate system as the all the real jobs dry up. Whenever I look through job listings I find that more and more of them feel like blatant scams and Ponzi schemes.

    The people who do the type of mocking I described are the people that absolutely cannot even fathom what you’re explaining in your post.

  3. October 6, 2014 at 1:09 am

    Well, these people are still useful. The whole society is a hive, a network. Corporations are nothing more than affirmations of a small part of that network. It’s not about production, it’s about ego-gratification. Your only value is your position in the hierarchy or network. If a lot of those people would disappear, the network would re-settle itself in the new situation. This will turn out better or worse for you, depending on your new position.
    To say it otherwise: you need a lot of clueless people in order to live as an invisible being. We as ghosts profit from their arrogance and ignorance. To be honest, I don’t wish to change this.

  4. October 6, 2014 at 3:58 am

    Reblogged this on Shh… and commented:
    This hits home hard in light of recent events.

  5. P Ray
    October 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    People enjoy the status of being the slaves of corporations.
    However they ignore the reality that they are easily replaceable.
    And, in their quest to be “respectable”, they uplift a lot of disrespectable characters.
    Kind of similar to the Nazi soldiers AND civilians saying “just following orders”.

  6. blurkel
    October 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    I find that is is always a good idea to be aware of one’s surroundings and those who inhabit them. But to immediately go to war with them, or wish them ill just because they might belong to a group for whom you have no positive concerns, only ensures that your worst fears will be realized. People can recognize anger and hatred when they perceive it in a person. If you represent a recognized threat to them, they will respond in kind.

    Defend yourself if attacked, but don’t go attacking anyone else. The One Commandment of Yeshua does say to treat others as you would be treated.

    First of all- quotes from any books of religion (ponzi schemes) or their prophets (scam artists) are worse than useless.

    Secondly, it is easier to destroy societies through general malicious neglect than specific targeted action.

    Thirdly, most people are too stupid, short-sighted and easily distracted to matter.

    • hoipolloi
      October 7, 2014 at 12:04 am

      @blurkel

      You have verbalized the exact thing in my mind which I try to follow in order to survive in the organizational set up. I try to analyze the situation around me, many people already sense I am antagonistic against the system. I tell them I should have a sense of what is in my surroundings, that does not equate declaring war against them. It is true that people can recognize disapproval when they perceive it in a person and expect them to respond in kind. You don’t even have to be real threat to them, they will “other” you and unsettle you.

      You don’t have to play nice or be an useful idiot. Reciprocating is usually sufficient to achieve the desired effect. In any case, we do not live in an era where they will help you- so just keep your distance from them.

      • P Ray
        March 4, 2016 at 8:17 am

        Remember, when you already exhibit the behaviour of “examining things just to see if what they say reflects the actual reality” …
        you are challenging the narrative of your superiors and colleagues.

        Making you their enemy, because … they only tell you the truth, and yet you suspect them /sarcasm

  7. masculineffort
    October 7, 2014 at 6:39 am

    God, you are so unhappy. Hope I never have to see things the way you do. Sweet Lord, talk about perennial depression, day after day, moment after moment continuously without respite. Such a total lack of Joy. Let alone joy, there is a complete lack of hope. A complete lack of peace. Probably no friends. Man! You lead a depressing life.

    what exactly is the problem? Did someone kill your family? Did someone cut your limbs? Do you have an incurable disease? Are you a very old man whose limbs hurt all the time? Do you have a brain tumor? Do you not have clothes to wear? No roof to cover your head from the rain? Do you not know where your next meal is coming from?

    Continuous agony. This is what hell must be like. What sort of life is this that you lead?

    • October 7, 2014 at 1:33 pm

      I first didn’t want to respond on your brainless piece of text. Something like a “pfff, whatever…”-reaction, but I accidentally clicked on your link and scrolled fast though your blog. Do you even realize how stupid this response sounds, knowning you follow religiously mass obedience-inducing entertainment like soccer? Judging your pua-adventures, crawling though the dust in order for getting some female attention, and your search for “the one”, lets me suspect you’re plainly bluepill and ignorant..
      You better start listening to advice like in this article. You seem to live in a world of political correct pink unicorns. Yes, it’s a disgusting message, but it’s a message that will protect you.

      • masculineffort
        October 13, 2014 at 2:44 am

        Man! You take yourself way too seriously!

    • joesantus
      October 7, 2014 at 4:39 pm

      Interesting, Masculine…your response evidences false dilemma thinking: you imply the only alternatives are that 1) assessing reality as AD does makes a person unhappy and depressed; or 2) assessing reality as however it is you do makes a person happy and joyous.

      And, you know this absolutely, to the point of esteeming yourself competent to suspect AD has no peace, joy, nor friends and has surely experienced some psyche-warping trauma, how, again?

      • masculineffort
        October 13, 2014 at 2:40 am

        Reality has several aspects, good and bad, depressing and joyous, positive and negative. Reality is Dualistic in nature. AD seems to be stuck on the negative. If reality interests you, you must accept it in it’s entirety. Perhaps AD is just addicted to unhappiness.

      • joesantus
        October 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm

        “Reality has several aspects, good and bad, depressing and joyous, positive and negative. Reality is Dualistic in nature. AD seems to be stuck on the negative. If reality interests you, you must accept it in it’s entirety. Perhaps AD is just addicted to unhappiness.”

        Well, “good” and “bad’, “positive’ and “negative”, are, of course, subjective. And, “Dualist” is a possible description of reality, but, of course, merely that — a possible, not a fact. “Dualist” may be merely a wishful, reductionistic simplification of reality — reality may be comprised of not only “negatives” and “positives” but of a multitude of “in-betweens” and “otherwises”.

        But, all that aside…my point was that you seem to be assuming that holding what you consider to be a negative worldview means one is unhappy. While it certainly might mean that, being “unhappy” doesn’t necessarily follow — for, one’s view of the world and humanity being (what in your evaluation is) “negative” can just as possibly enable a person to, say, have no regrettted expectations, suffer no betrayed trusts, nor experience dashed hopes — and, consequently, to actually be “happy”.

        So, my question still stands to you: HOW do you know that AD is “unhappy” because of what you term his “negative”
        worldview?

      • masculineffort
        October 26, 2014 at 10:08 pm

        AD clings to a false view which is unnecessarily pessimistic to boot. It is the falsehood that leads to unhappiness. If his view was irrationally optimistic, he would be called delusional. Since it is irrationally pessimistic, I say he is unhappy and possibly a depressed.

        I know several people holding similar views as AD. I would not characterize their state of being as happiness. I do not “know” that AD is unhappy. I would just be very surprised if he wasn’t

      • joesantus
        October 28, 2014 at 12:36 pm

        “October 7, 2014
        God, you are so unhappy. Hope I never have to see things the way you do…..
        “October 26, 2014 I do not “know” that AD is unhappy. I would just be very surprised if he wasn’t.”

        masculine, Your Oct 7 comment expressly states that AD is unhappy.
        However, your Oct 26 comment expresses that you don’t actually know if AD is unhappy or not.

        Do you admit then, that your Oct 7, 2014, statement about AD being unhappy was merely presumptive, based not upon firsthand knowledge of AD but rather upon your own limited experience and self-projection?

        And, since you don’t factually know AD, do you acknowledge the possibility that AD might be happy?

      • masculineffort
        October 29, 2014 at 3:49 am

        @josesantus Sure, mate. I do acknowledge that there is a chance that AD is happy, however small that might be.

    • October 7, 2014 at 5:01 pm

      @ Masculineffort – No. While it MAY be possible that AD may be suffering from a “luxury problem” like the protagonist in “Fight Club”, he is broadcasting some very ugly, despicable truths about human nature. Regardless of how ugly and hurtful the truth is, it will set you free, ease your mind and cause you to come to terms that most people aren’t worth defending, let alone acknowledging.

      This is why I visit this blog on a daily or weekly basis
      (p.s., he has influenced me to create my own blog).

      • masculineffort
        October 13, 2014 at 2:44 am

        All he does is broadcast the ugly shit. Yes, ugly shit exists. But so does beautiful stuff. Yes, assholes who would think nothing of stabbing you in your back exist. So do wonderful people who would risk their life to save you from certain death.

      • October 13, 2014 at 9:28 am

        And what is the ratio of those backstabbing self-serving bitches and bastards and those who will actually have your best interest? Which ratio is higher? Which is more reciprocating? We don’t live in a world where people have eachother’s backs. Some folks (blue-pillers) learn too late in life that you have to look out for yourself!

      • P Ray
        October 13, 2014 at 10:56 am

        Blue-pillers want people to follow a scam while they figure a way out how to become the top dog.
        In other words “Do as I say, not as I do” …

      • October 13, 2014 at 2:11 pm

        Blue-pillers want people to follow a scam while they figure a way out how to become the top dog.
        In other words “Do as I say, not as I do”,

        That’s why there’s a saying that goes… Never argue with an idiot. Just like you never argue with children, or even women. They’ll drag you down to their level, only to buy time and beat you with experience. And you’ll be stuck on stupid, wondering “What the hell happened?”

      • masculineffort
        October 14, 2014 at 12:09 am

        I doubt anybody can tell you what the ratio really is. One can only say what one has experienced. I’ve had people stab me as well as stick their neck out for me. For me, I’d say the ratio is about even.

        Certainly, you are primarily responsible for yourself and cannot expect anyone else to take care of you. But to believe that the majority is out to get you is plain wrong.

        Are you trying to tell me that the majority of people you have met were trying to Shaft you or would have shafted you had they got the chance?

      • P Ray
        October 14, 2014 at 9:56 am

        Are you trying to tell me that the majority of people you have met were trying to Shaft you or would have shafted you had they got the chance?
        For me, it’s surprising to observe how many people down on their luck (and even kept there by others) happen to be ugly.
        Almost as if being good looking is an insulation against predation.
        I haven’t yet seen those “dens of sex slavery” that have model-level slaves.
        Something to think about.

      • October 14, 2014 at 3:50 pm

        For me, it’s surprising to observe how many people down on their luck (and even kept there by others) happen to be ugly.

        Then you’re just plain off base, P Ray. I’ve seen nearly entire populations of some of the poorest countries “down on their luck” and yet been impressed by the beauty and physique of many of them (not all of course.) There’s simply no fixed relation between beauty and avoiding bad luck. Or some principle of the universe to the effect beauty is a shield to misfortune.

        But, that having said, I don’t even see how your comment contributes to the conversation.

        My own two cents: I suspect only a very small percentage of the population is really truly rotten. This could be less than one percent, but I definitely think it is less than twenty percent.

        The problem is, it doesn’t matter if the percentage is small once this small percentage has consolidated its power and influence. That’s because this power and influence extends more or less over all of us. We all become complicit whether we want to or not, just to varying degrees. (Unless we drop out or martyr ourselves…The drop out tactic has appeal to me.)

        We live within a political system of plutocratic kleptocracy, and under an economic system of crimecrumbunism.

      • P Ray
        October 14, 2014 at 9:06 pm

        ^ Congratulations, then it truly does mean that
        “most people around you don’t deserve sympathy or compassion”, because to spare themselves censure or loss of opportunity (because of the fact of greedy/criminal governance) …
        they’ll stab you to either not fall foul of them OR secure an advantage in such a predatory environment.
        Bringing us … right back to the title.

      • masculineffort
        October 14, 2014 at 9:29 pm

        P Ray man, do you feel that the majority of people you meet would shaft you if you had the chance? Your comment does not seem to address this question. Instead you go off on a tangent about people down on their luck being ugly.

      • P Ray
        October 15, 2014 at 2:32 am

        ^ “Shafting” you is relative.
        After all, the “family man” who doesn’t want to help someone in trouble because “I have a family” …
        is doing a good thing according to themselves and others.
        It’s not a tangent BTW (your bluepill is showing): Observe how attractive people can ask for funds on kickstarter for a Master’s.
        Then ask yourself if an ugly person did that, would they be successful?
        dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704394/Posh-brat-Oxford-student-calls-scientist-hula-dancer-singer-raises-14-000-strangers-pay-masters-failing-200-jobs.html
        Money given towards someone attractive that underperforms,
        is money unavailable towards someone that needs it who doesn’t get it …

      • P Ray
        October 15, 2014 at 6:09 am

        @zoussef:
        But, that having said, I don’t even see how your comment contributes to the conversation.
        That being said. For you, it’s English as a second language, is it?
        Anyhow, too bad you don’t run this blog, eh?
        Too bad you can’t control people who disagree with you … 🙂

      • October 15, 2014 at 8:57 am

        “Too bad you can’t control people who disagree with you … 🙂

        It’s not even clear we actually and substantively disagree, you idiot. Nevertheless this is over and out from me to you.

      • masculineffort
        October 15, 2014 at 9:40 am

        It is just a fact of life that better looking people have an easier time than ugly people. Just like it is fact of life that a smarter person has an easier time than someone of average intelligence. Tall people have an advantage over short people. A hard worker has an advantage over someone who is lazy. People are unequal in so many ways. That’s just how things are.

        And why conclude that most people are scum just for that? Sorry, I just don’t follow the logic. Certainly people are no angels. But they are no demons either. You guys seem to enjoy being angry and upset. No matter what happens, you home in on the most ugly shit and put a most depressing spin on it. And spin is what you put on it. If the MSM is guilty of putting a happy spin on everything, you guys are guilty of the other extreme.

        Why make oneself so unhappy over reality? Why go to the deep end and conclude that it is even worse than reality. This desire to be unhappy that seems to possess the lot of you is at once morbidly fascinating and incomprehensible to me.

      • P Ray
        October 15, 2014 at 4:52 pm

        @masculineeffort:
        Why make oneself so unhappy over reality? Why go to the deep end and conclude that it is even worse than reality. This desire to be unhappy that seems to possess the lot of you is at once morbidly fascinating and incomprehensible to me.

        Uh, did you notice that at no point in the essay did the words “I’m sad about this” come up?
        But it seems the actions of “acknowledging unfairness” and “how people scam and not putting up with it”,
        gets conflated with “unhappy over reality” and “desire to be unhappy”.
        What is it with you and “irrational positivism”?

      • masculineffort
        October 15, 2014 at 8:25 pm

        I’m not big on keywords but I’ll give it a shot here. But I’ll ask “what’s with you and irrational negativism”

        The fact that you insist on seeing reality as far worse than it actually is leads to the suspicion that you get some sort of kick out of it.

        You’re angry about this or at least you sound angry about it. Anger is not exactly happiness.

        Have you ever in your life gone out of your way and helped out a friend in need? Have you ever gone out of your way to help a stranger in need? Have you ever risked something to help another person?

      • P Ray
        October 15, 2014 at 11:42 pm

        @masculineeffort
        Have you ever in your life gone out of your way and helped out a friend in need? Have you ever gone out of your way to help a stranger in need? Have you ever risked something to help another person?
        Yep, yep and yep.
        1. “Friend” didn’t pay back the loan he was given.
        2. Told “thanks” by a guy who got run over.
        3. Missed a job opportunity by helping a friend go over their job application.

        For a “masculine effort” guy, you spend a lot of time trying to prove that other people are the problem … which was the point of the topic 🙂

      • masculineffort
        October 16, 2014 at 1:32 am

        @ P Ray ……. I’m just saying that people are neither angels nor demons. They may not be out to help you. But they are not out to screw you over either.

        I’m not trying to prove you wrong. Just trying to understand your viewpoint. Challenging your viewpoint and seeing your response is one way of accomplishing that.

        So an “effort” guy is not supposed to spend any time in discussion? 🙂

      • P Ray
        October 16, 2014 at 2:28 am

        So an “effort” guy is not supposed to spend any time in discussion?
        Sure you are, but not being able to understand the other point of view, kind of misses the point.
        In short, people are neither angels or demons.
        But they do take whatever opportunities are presented …
        so that’s what I’ve learned. 🙂
        For me, people choose to be demonic. Therefore, they will be treated as such, and I am glad dissention shines a light on that lovely unpleasant truth 🙂

      • masculineffort
        October 16, 2014 at 3:50 am

        Well, I’m trying to see your point of view, aren’t I? I still don’t get it, but I’m fascinated in a morbid sort of way

        Look, people do not choose to be demonic or angelic regardless of consequences. People are subject to the influences on them. If the incentives are towards demonic behavior, their actions will be demonic. If the incentives are towards angelic behavior, their behavior will be angelic. The same thing holds for dis-incentives.

        If people are increasingly acting in a demonic way, I say it is because they are living in a system that incentivizes that sort of behavior. I have lived with people (Indian mountain folk, some village folk) where their society has a structure that incentivizes honest behavior and these people are wonderful. They don’t bother to lock their doors and women freely roam around at night. Incidents of theft, murder, rape are unheard of unlike in the rest of India.

        If women in western society are acting in a certain way, then understand that your society has created such a structure that incentivizes them to act that way. Why worry about whether your man is a good provider if the state is providing everything for you? Better to just bang the thugs, enjoy the thug lust and get that monthly welfare check from the state. Go back to your great-grandmother’s time. Did she act this way? Of course not. Going for thug-lust would have been suicide for her and she knew it.

        So rant as much as you want about the incentives that people are subject to and I will not question you. But this blanket condemnation of people as demonic without considering the incentives and disincentives they are subject to is just not ok.

      • Great Grimoires For Masons
        October 16, 2014 at 4:02 am

        “If women in western society are acting in a certain way, then understand that your society has created such a structure that incentivizes them to act that way.”

        lzolzollzollolzozlozlozzlo…….

      • P Ray
        October 20, 2014 at 4:32 am

        @masculineffort:
        But this blanket condemnation of people as demonic without considering the incentives and disincentives they are subject to is just not ok.
        Look, I hope you’re not trying to be one of those “wannabe whites” Indians that dissention talks about:
        dissention.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/my-views-on-wannabe-whites/

        That article may hold some relevance for you,
        and talking about “incentivising” as an excuse for bad behaviour …
        implies that people do not have the stones in them to have good character.
        So who’s the “ranter” now?

      • masculineffort
        October 20, 2014 at 10:08 pm

        Saying that incentives matter makes you a wannabe white?

        The mistake you people seem to make is that you think that things have only a single cause. In reality things have multiple causes. While incentives are not the sole cause of the condition of the world, they are an important cause.

        And saying that makes you a wannabe white? Look, I’m very proud of being Indian. I’m proud of my culture, my heritage, the actions of my ancestors (not the caste system of course), my history, the tradition of intellectual freedom. But I also like the white people I have interacted with. What’s the problem here?

        Your God, the one and only AD not only hates white people, he also hates Indians, Chinese, East Asians, South East asians, Muslims, his own relatives etc etc as far as I am aware. Recently he also added Muslims to the list. Some day in the future he may add Blacks, Latin American people, Eskimos, Australian aborigines, Maoris, Native Americans depending on whether he comes into contact with them or not. I think he may add Blacks and Latins to the list after much hesitation because even if he hates them, he will hesitate to put it here as that might clash with his own self image of himself as the one rational being in a sea or irrational dolts.

        Whatever group of people this AD fellow comes into contact with, he will eventually grow to hate them.

      • P Ray
        October 22, 2014 at 11:12 pm

        You must realise that the all Abrahamic religions have this idea (or a variation of):
        “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35″For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”

        So I’m not sure about this idea that “AD is a great threat, he hates everyone!!!111”
        As examples, read up on the Stern gang, the IRA and terrorism.

      • P Ray
        October 23, 2014 at 4:59 am

        Also,
        @masculineeffort:
        The other big problem with the 3 Abrahamic religions,
        is that they all talk about “forgiveness by God towards perpetrators”
        and are strangely silent about
        “compensation towards the victims by the perpetrators OR God(who forgives them)”.
        It’s a very interesting feature, that results in some fascinating human behaviour.

      • masculineffort
        October 26, 2014 at 10:02 pm

        @P Ray. Your analysis of Abrahamic religions is largely correct.

  8. October 8, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    In an atomized society there are no rational reasons to feel any sympathy or compassion for people who just happen to exist around you.

    I also wouldn’t say there’s any rational reason to feel sympathy or compassion, or attempt to justify extending sympathy or compassion, but I do think there are important reasons for attempting to build bonds and a sense of solidarity with others who are basically in the same boat.

    It is the absence of these bonds and solidarity which is allowing the stooges on top to shove us around at will. We’re always going to be weak if our condition is one of isolation, atomization.

    I am not speaking about an endless willingness to attempt “reciprocity” when it becomes clear there’s not going to be “reciprocity.” But I think there’s a need to give people a chance. There’s more goodwill, awareness and intelligence out there than you may think.(Or perhaps it is more than you are willing to let on you think. I doubt you’d be wasting your time on this blog if you really felt no one was capable of listening or comprehending, of being influenced and thereby acting in concert.)

    • P Ray
      October 8, 2014 at 7:29 pm

      People being told they are being scammed, will look over the biggest scam that is “organised society”, and then look out for themselves (thereby acting in concert to either starve the scamsters, or require them to accept payment other than money or find something else to scam with).

      For me, among other things, I believe and hope that this action, forces a lot of women to demonstrably renounce their “feminism”(quotes since that is the type that wants “equality when convenient, chivalry when convenient) … and learn to stick to what they say (women are notorious for changing their minds when they’re required to reciprocate).

      • October 9, 2014 at 9:27 am

        That’s why we reject out of hand any woman who self-identifies as a feminist. (Scare quotes or not.) But it is important in this context to remember most women–maybe more than 9 out of 10– do not self-identify as feminists. Feminism is not a mass movement. It is an extremely powerful and influential elite movement. Most women would take an honest stab at reciprocity if they had a reasonable reassurance the man would, too. Part of the problem we face is that the feminists have undue influence in the media and cause women to fear giving men a chance, too.

      • P Ray
        October 9, 2014 at 4:14 pm

        Perhaps you should read that article:
        rooshv.com/the-war-against-men
        Your average girl on the street is not an activist. She doesn’t protest, organize, or even write emails of complaint. She’s too busy distracting herself with Instagram, her iPhone, celebrity gossip, and the latest reality TV shows, but the three beliefs are still firmly entrenched in her brain. She thinks women are being held down, she thinks women are less fallible than men, and she thinks her value is not tied to her beauty.

        If she’s not protesting or complaining, where and how do these beliefs reveal themselves? Where do they leak out from her brain and transmutate into the real world? On you. You are the primary recipient of these beliefs.

        Feminist thoughts ferment in her brain for many years without her realizing it to eventually rain down like napalm on your senses in the form of words, actions, and outbursts when you approach her, have sex with her, or have a relationship with her. I don’t need to tell you that this will not be positive.

        Please don’t spread your bluepill here, that “the average woman is not feminist”.
        She IS, when she’s dealing with “the average man”.

  9. Flex wheeler
    October 9, 2014 at 5:18 am

    @masculineffort

    I’ve been to your useless blog and please don’t talk about football or soccer (whatever they say in your country), you obviously don’t have a clue.

  10. October 9, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    “According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans — including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men — consider themselves feminists. Another 8 percent consider themselves anti-feminists, while 63 percent said they are neither.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

    I’ve seen a variety of poll results and in none of them have more than 25% polled considered themselves feminists and in most it seems to me the result is about 10%.

    By the basic definition of feminist:” Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines feminism as ‘the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes’ “ I would be a feminist, but the basic definition of feminism is no longer in popular parlance…It’s not what people mean when they say “feminist”. It’s not what I mean. “The gulf between the percentage of people who identify as feminists and the percentage who believe in the equality of the sexes may be partly due to a branding problem for the word “feminism.” Thirty-seven percent said they consider “feminist” to be a negative term, compared to only 26 percent who consider it a positive term. Twenty-nine percent said it’s a neutral term.” Yeah, it’s negative alright, for precisely the reason you described earlier and with which I thought we were in agreement– that feminism is really about privilege for women and a one way street (no reciprocity.)

    I believe Freud was onto something when he spoke of penis envy– an unconscious resentment by women of what they perceive to be the superior power of men over women. This colors the relations of men and women and it is something very difficult to contend with. No doubt about it. But penis envy doth not a feminist make. We’re speaking of different things if you believe a woman who is selfish and self-absorbed and takes her problems out on men is a feminist, that this is what characterizes feminism. There were women like that before the word had ever been coined. Somehow you’re confusing the psychological and the private ( penis envy, selfishness) with the social, economical, and political. They are related, but not in a directly articulable way. Saying a woman distracting herself is a feminist activist and thereby known as such…That can’t be what you think.

    • P Ray
      October 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm

      Life doesn’t take place in a dictionary.
      It would be wise for you to remember that.

    • P Ray
      October 9, 2014 at 11:27 pm

      P.S. Feminists don’t blink out of existence the moment they are at variance with their dictionary definition.

  11. October 10, 2014 at 5:59 am

    We can be clear about what we expect from someone else and clear about what they can expect from us in return. (Reciprocity.) We can be clear-eyed many people aren’t going to hold up their end of the bargain and a woman who identifies herself as a feminist is almost certainly pre-qualifying herself as someone who won’t. We can most certainly avoid unrealistic expectations such as the ones which come culturally-conditioned such as our fellows deserve and must be given sympathy and compassion, (what I’ve taken this post to be about.) We can be decisive about what happens when someone doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain.We can definitely avoid sitting there and “taking it” because we’ve been taught that’s what we must do, (especially with women.) We can avoid the total idiocy of marriage. What I reject is this cynical, bitter, reactivity urging what looks like an attitude of hatred and malice towards everyone, everywhere, all the time. A little bit of eyes wide open, forewarned is forearmed, eqaunimity, please. If you really have hatred towards women, that’s going to be perceived, and you’re going to have a variety of serious problems you don’t want or need. If I was a woman, I wouldn’t like you either. Most of your observations could help you deal better with the “fair” sex, not destroy all possibility of relating to them.

    • blurkel
      October 10, 2014 at 8:26 am

      I endorse your comments. You put into words […cynical, bitter, reactivity…an attitude of hatred and malice towards everyone, everywhere, all the time] what I was thinking. It would serve such self-appointed superior beings to have to live in a world run under their biased rules.

    • P Ray
      October 10, 2014 at 8:43 am

      If women’s “intuition” worked so well,
      why do 50% of marriages end in divorce,
      and
      how did Ted Bundy manage to kill so many of them?

    • joesantus
      October 10, 2014 at 10:18 am

      As a 58-year-old guy who’s somewhat removed from the social situation faced by you under-40s and especially under-30s, I don’t experience the consequences of post-1980 born Western women as you younger guys do. I don’t experience the immediate psychological fall-out. So, maybe I can observe and comment more objectively. Here’s my take:

      Most any woman at any time in history has essentially believed or at least wanted to believe, what P Ray quoted: “She thinks women are being held down, she thinks women are less fallible than men, and she thinks her value is not tied to her beauty.”

      I don’t see that women were ever different in generally thinking those three things.

      However, what has changed in Western cultures are societal checks-and-balances. Both women and men were checked and balanced by established social dynamics and societal structures until the recent past. Women of the past generally thought those same three things, but those checks and balances restricted women’s behavioral expression of those beliefs — for example, economic structures meant women required men for immediate survival, so women realized it to be in their own interest to settle for situations with men within which women functioned contrary to those three thoughts. Economic changes, contraceptive advances, and moral/religious rethinking has, however, largely deactivated the force of those past dynamics and structures — women no longer require men for survival.

      Consequently, under-30 women experience little to no need to check the expression of those three thoughts. They have little reason to “settle”, so little motivation to “trade” with men. While most women aren’t self-labeled feminists, women nevertheless are exhorted in those three thoughts by the high-profile media and academic barrage from the feminista minority.

      I see the outcome pretty much as AD puts it, though perhaps minus the understandable bitterness that you young guys carry in result of being in the situation in a way I’m not: unless you’re an alpha-stud elite (and probably ESPECIALLY if you ARE one!) , it’s a bit irrational to “get in line with the old system”. If you have little chance of meeting a woman who ISN”T checked-and-balanced in her expression of those three thoughts; then, it’s pointless to function the same ways as men in the past who DID have chance of meeting checked-and-balanced women. The present societal climate means under-30 women aren’t following those earlier “rules of order”.

      • hoipolloi
        October 11, 2014 at 4:33 am

        @joesantus

        I fully understood what you said and agree. I want to add that from a cosmic point of veiw, women are the human beings. They can bring forth another human into the world with or without a male participation. Parthenogenesis in humans is as simple as heterosexual conception, if you consider the latest biotech advances. It is a long time before men can do the same without the need for a surrogate womb from women.

      • October 11, 2014 at 8:30 am

        I don’t disagree with you either, except if you are implying things were better “back in the good old days.” It is true these impulses, these three thoughts of women, were held in check by social mechanisms which have since dissolved, but that’s about the best thing you can say about previous times. There are very good things about these times for us as long as we don’t walk around blind to the reality of what motivates women and the nature of their behavior. These can, in fact, be used to our advantage. We do not have to be threatened. All else failing, we can, if we want to go that route, use escorts–good looking women available at an economic rate (all things considered)– with very, very little chance of negative consequences. (I agree with the thesis the real reason these services are opposed and repressed is they do highlight the little piece of real estate between a woman’s legs isn’t a pricelessly valuable Valhalla for which we be willing to give anything and everything, as we’ve been taught.)

      • joesantus
        October 17, 2014 at 4:40 pm

        @ hoipolloi: Yep. That the human species perpetuates by heterosexual reproduction, and that the female gender bears the offspring, are what will prohibit the genders from absolute isolation, not only direct but indirect, from each other even if they want it, for the foreseeable future.

        @ zoussef: Nope, I wasn’t implying that the past period of checks-and-balances was some superior “good ol’ days”.
        I see that earlier system as merely the combined effect of Western societies’ various components (“good”, “neutral”, and “bad”) for that period in history. The components have changed, so the combined effect seen today is simply “different”, not necessarily better nor worse.

  12. emil
    October 12, 2014 at 2:42 am

    Rationality… is only the sword that cuts. There’s more to life than this. You don’t realize but then you also live in the planet’s heart of evil.

  13. Fuck Indians
    October 12, 2014 at 4:42 am

    You are some Indian who can’t get white women to fuck you without paying whores. And you’re always complaining and moaning about this fact. How about you just move back to India and be with your own kind. We don’t want you here. You bitch about white people yet you use computers and cars and planes we invented and speak our language instead of your own shitty Indian language. If Indians are so superior why was it so easy for white man to take over your country? Where were the guns you invented? Nowhere. You’re a member of an inferior race. Face it. Go to your slumdog millionaire pile of garbage city and be an educated elite there and be happy. Instead of whining about how you don’t fit in, in the country you came to without our consent in the first place.

    • EvilOne
      October 12, 2014 at 5:21 am

      Once upon a time, this would have cut deep.

    • October 12, 2014 at 9:20 am

      See, this is the American male ( I wouldn’t say American man.) You all think men have problem with women and women don’t have problems vice versa? Think again.

      This kind has grown up in an America of unprecedented wealth, power, and military might, and, while sputtering out the above kind of crap, has sat idly by as it has been slowly drained away from within…Partially because it has been drained away by native-born caucasians of the type this kind of male has been taught to obediently respect. This kind of male has been taught to obediently direct spleen and blame away from these native-born caucasians, especially towards “foreigners”. It’s pathetic.

      AD’s comments aren’t directed only towards Americans, nor have they exempted Indians.

      BTW, Indian chics are kind of hot.

      Somebody else– do you favor a caucasian woman, and if so, why?

    • Atlanta Man
      October 14, 2014 at 7:51 pm

      You may not want Asians ( I include India in Asia), buy you need Asians. There is a doctor and STEM professional shortage in America because your “superior” race is too fucking lazy to major in anything but liberal arts. HBD your way to a real science class , pass the USMLE ,then tell me how you want the “inferior” races to leave.

      • Dick
        October 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm

        Since even engineers have difficulties to find a job nowadays, your claim that there is a shortage is a lie.

      • P Ray
        October 15, 2014 at 2:34 am

        @Dick: This is a good example:
        dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2526054/The-Cambridge-graduates-grateful-earn-7-hour-Amazon-drones-As-Ben-reveals-working-gruelling-shifts-warehouse-job-get.html
        For every graduate employed by Amazon this Christmas, there are several more who didn’t make it: including my elder brother, Alexander. He read maths at Cambridge and has just finished a computer science Masters at Bristol.

        On my second day at work, I called him during a precious break to tell him about the job and he rushed home from Bristol, just in time for an induction on the last day of recruitment. But the news was not what he had hoped. Despite passing all the tests, Alex was surplus to requirements.

        He’s on the waiting list now, and hoping for a phone call in case an employee calls in sick.

        He is not alone. He lives with two other Bristol graduates: one is still jobless and the other has been working as a part-time shop assistant for 18 months.

      • Atlanta Man
        October 15, 2014 at 7:55 am

        In America there is a doctor shortage especially in internal medicine/family practice. Medical schools have increased enrollment by30% in an attempt to compensate. I am currently in medical school and all the residencies are in family practice and radiology. That dude from Cambridge needs to come to America and take the patent bar and he can get a job tommorow.

      • October 15, 2014 at 9:10 am

        Isn’t part of the problem the fluctuation of supply and demand in labor markets? You might prepare yourself with skills for a field currently with high demand only to find, once you have those skills, the demand has been satisfied. Often it has been satisfied by importing from regions of the global economy where those skills are in surplus. (Which stirs a certain kind of resentment in the importing domestic population against that region. Easily exploited to create further harm.) This is good for business and bad for nearly all else. It creates a brain drain in Asia and delays meaningful entry into the stable workforce elsewhere. It’s terrible to see the employment numbers for the recently graduated, and the situation is no longer accurately described as “temporary.”

      • P Ray
        October 16, 2014 at 12:14 am

        It creates a brain drain in Asia and delays meaningful entry into the stable workforce elsewhere.
        Somebody swallowed the Kool-Aid.
        If there was truly a brain drain:
        1) People in those fields would be earning more
        2) They would have more to stick around for, and stay in companies for longer
        3) Universities would have more people sign up for the STEM courses.

        That’s not the case. The people earning the big bucks … is overwhelmingly “management” “human resources” and “sales”.

        Having a good face, chest and ass helps.
        Guess which gender is more employed? 🙂

  14. Atlanta Man
    October 15, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    One thing I will give the NMA is that graduates from schools outside the US still must take the USMLE step1 , 2 and 3 and apply for licensure in America before they can practice here.

  15. October 16, 2014 at 5:57 am

    Masculineffort said… If women in western society are acting in a certain way, then understand that your society has created such a structure that incentivizes them to act that way. Why worry about whether your man is a good provider if the state is providing everything for you? Better to just bang the thugs, enjoy the thug lust and get that monthly welfare check from the state. Go back to your great-grandmother’s time. Did she act this way? Of course not. Going for thug-lust would have been suicide for her and she knew it.

    LOLOL. But the educated, career-oriented ones like thug dick, too… be it from the dope boy gangstas, the wannabes or the blue-collar types.

    • October 16, 2014 at 9:00 am

      But the educated, career-oriented ones like thug dick, too… be it from the dope boy gangstas, the wannabes or the blue-collar types.

      Aren’t you assuming there’s a differential in the incentives and disincentives uneducated, career-indifferent women are subject to compared to educated, career-oriented ones? (In regard to whether or not to partake of thug dick.) I don’t see the difference– neither group has any incentive to go for “nice guy” dick or whatever its called or any disincentive. The worst that happens is with age thug dick is no longer attracted.In which case nice guy steps in and offers himself for exploitation. Where do you see a difference?

      • October 16, 2014 at 11:31 am

        Because as Masculineffort just said… Why worry about whether your man is a good provider if the state is providing everything for you? Better to just bang the thugs, enjoy the thug lust and get that monthly welfare check from the state.

        Even though the welfare state oddly put these type of men in high demand, a lot of folks are under the assumption that only ghetto hoodrats, “housing hoes” and “welfare queens” enjoy these type of men, which is false.

      • masculineffort
        October 16, 2014 at 9:14 pm

        @zoussef @MrOdessa

        you guys have a valid point. And a very good one. However, hear me out.

        Most of these career oriented women you speak of work in government Jobs or corporate HR. Government jobs are as close as it get’s to “money for nothing.” and “power without responsibility” It is just another name for welfare.

        As for corporate HR, please understand that most of those jobs are government mandated. The government mandates that companies of a certain size or beyond have those sort of jobs. There is no real reason for those jobs. They produce no value. They are another form of government welfare. If not for government mandates, these jobs would not even be there.

        Welfare is not just about unemployment benefits or disability checks or what have you. In includes the government bail out of Gold man sachs or subsidies to corporate entities. It includes lots and lots of things.

        Now if you take away all of these, you have lots and lots of women who would suddenly be dependent on marriage and provider men for their survival. Beta men would once again be desired like they were in your great-grandmother’s times. Like they are in India today (though that is changing. We are learning from you, see?), or like in the Philippines etc.

        Of course there are some women who do jobs that have real values as doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers etc etc. They also make good money. And yes, since they are independent and have a source of income independent of men, they will continue to indulge in thug lust without major consequences. But these are a small proportion of all women. Why do you care? Besides why should we care if a woman finances her own thug-lust with her own hard work. Our objection is that we are being forced to subsidize her thug lust with our hard work, isn’t it?

      • blurkel
        October 17, 2014 at 5:27 am

        “…why should we care if a woman finances her own thug-lust with her own hard work. Our objection is that we are being forced to subsidize her thug lust with our hard work, isn’t it?

        Finally! Someone who understands the situation!

        Whether it’s thug lust or any other activity we men aren’t interested in subsidizing, why should we care if she earns enough to pay for it herself? In the same way we men expect women not to care about the activities we pursue, the costs of which come out of our own pockets. The more separation between women and our money, the better.

        And don’t fall for the BS that you need to control one. You only have to feed them.

      • masculineffort
        October 17, 2014 at 10:21 am

        @blurkel I absolutely agree with with you.

      • P Ray
        October 20, 2014 at 4:37 am

        Whether it’s thug lust or any other activity we men aren’t interested in subsidizing, why should we care if she earns enough to pay for it herself? In the same way we men expect women not to care about the activities we pursue, the costs of which come out of our own pockets. The more separation between women and our money, the better.
        Sorry, but the feminist bloc unanimously state that
        “women must be free and liberated, but anything men do must be controlled, because men are savages”(despite women being curiously absent in many technological and civilisational achievements.

        P.S. There will never be “separation between women’s and men’s money”, because
        – government caters to, pays for, and prints money for women (more men are homeless than women)
        – men want to get that pussy, and are willing to debase themselves to get it
        – (regular) men know that an accusation from women can destroy them, so they don’t speak up.

  16. Jack
    October 16, 2014 at 10:06 am

    While I agree with the general thesis such as, schools still lie saying it will lead to getting a good job, but in reality it does not. Who selects the criteria when two or more people have conflicting views? Especially, when it’s over resources, it leads to war for power and control. People have different (and usually limited) personal experiences that forms their views. The most I was ever lied to and manipulated was by a bunch of males and a few females in religion. A guy owner of a car dealership with male mechanics absolutely knew but did not tell me there was a serious engine problem with a lemon they sold me and a few months later I had to junk it and lost thousands. After a stock market crash and losing much money the CEO did not increase the shares again while he pocketed more millions for himself. I got speeding and parking tickets from guys upon answering a baiting question on how fast I was going and when only being 3 minutes over due to someone in their office holding me up and it appeared to be racial. The most arrogant, belligerent, psychopath that I often had to deal with was a guy in a very high level government type job controlling part of the legal system where he even tells people he is going to use things against them and few people knew the extent he is severely mentally crazy. After dealing with that psychopath guy, there is no women for me to deal with as worse as that guy. That hostile personal experience totally changed my perspective towards viewing even upset women who are nothing compared to that psychopath guy. People from India I heard are very intelligent, so I couldn’t understand when on tv there was thousands bathing in water with feces, and customer service who could not speak as clearly as a five year old, and yet there are many who are in science. A male and a female worked for a male manager from India who fit the stereotype of hating women and white Americans, so eventually they left. Even my brothers in the NBA say it’s a black league, but they don’t move back to Africa or help our people in Africa. There’s a guy with millions who promotes socialism, yet he won’t even distribute one cent to each of his subscribers. I decided to never get married, so now I don’t have to worry about divorce, therefore I’m fine with basically all women now. Most women treat me good, so I treat all women good and we’re on pretty cool terms together. I stopped reading pua blogs because they are all beta types constantly complaining and most gave terrible advice that would make followers worse. Every woman won’t go out with me, but I don’t take it personally. I don’t hate women or men. I really like women. I do not have a problem with women and men driving, having jobs, and voting (that’s for nothing anyway). Unlike ironically most pua bloggers I’m not old fashioned traditional and I don’t even want women or men cooking for me and such. There’s been HOspitals that would not give me or friends freebies, and in fact would not even get near us without insurance, when we were going to pay out of pocket and even as a friend was bleeding to death on the ER floor, so we had to take our bro to someone else to get sewed up and lose some parts. All of the companies in the world won’t hire me, but I don’t care, if they don’t want me then I don’t want to do business with them. I like buying products from some companies when the stash is high. Employers that treat employees like crap still expect them to work hard, but that’s not who we roll with.

  17. October 17, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    @Masculineffort…

    You said… Now if you take away all of these, you have lots and lots of women who would suddenly be dependent on marriage and provider men for their survival. Beta men would once again be desired like they were in your great-grandmother’s times. Like they are in India today (though that is changing. We are learning from you, see?), or like in the Philippines etc.

    Throughout history, women have ALWAYS attached themselves to the dominant male, though. Even more than the betas. Betas were normalized at some point because, like marriage, it was the ‘natural order of things’ in order for hierarchies and family structures to be built. Today, things are different, especially in western society. Traditionalism is dead and people rely on self-interest. As far as bad boys vs. nice guys… well, nice guys finish last in the U.S. Bad boys come in different types. While non-black women like bad boys also, black women go overboard with it. Like someone said years ago, it’s like they want a ‘2Pac with a degree’. But I also understand that in foreign countries (even in poverty-stricken parts of Brazil where prostitution is legal), women there don’t dig thugs and bad boys, or even as much as westernized females do.

    An old friend of mine used to go to Brazil a lot and from what I’ve heard, women hate the guys who emphasize on ‘swag’ and those who make cat calls to women on the beaches. I also hear that professional guys are appreciated more in non-western societies, whereas some professional guys in the west are only valued for their currency. I’m sure I’m not the only one here in the west who had young attention-whores tell me that I was ‘annoying’ because I was not ‘street’ enough or ‘thug’ enough. Some of these chicks had boyfriends roaming in and out of prison for stupid shit and their boyfriends would occasionally go upside their heads.

    But hey… it’s the nature of the beast.

  18. hoipolloi
    October 19, 2014 at 8:10 am

    @F#ck Inidians
    “You bitch about white people yet you use computers and cars and planes we invented— ”

    You seem to have good taste in humans 🙂 At least in case of computers the present ones are in existence predominantly due to Asians. Steve Jobs was a Buddhist. That is what AD is trying to mention somewhere else. The technological legacy has been passed on to the non-whites. White monopoly in international geopolitics is a passe. They are still major players,though.

  19. October 21, 2014 at 6:41 am

    Masculineeffort wrote… Your God, the one and only AD not only hates white people, he also hates Indians, Chinese, East Asians, South East asians, Muslims, his own relatives etc etc as far as I am aware. Recently he also added Muslims to the list. Some day in the future he may add Blacks, Latin American people, Eskimos, Australian aborigines, Maoris, Native Americans depending on whether he comes into contact with them or not. I think he may add Blacks and Latins to the list after much hesitation because even if he hates them, he will hesitate to put it here as that might clash with his own self image of himself as the one rational being in a sea or irrational dolts.

    Where did he say he hates Southeast Asians? I understand his contempt of whites, East Asians and Muslims, but… You think he’ll add other races of people to his brand of contempt in the future? Blacks and Latinos?

    • masculineffort
      October 21, 2014 at 9:59 am

      Right now, he may have a hard time accepting that he hates black and latino people too because it clashes with his self image as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. However, give it time. He is only in his late 30s. Another 30+ years of premium hating to go. A lot of groups can be added to that list in that time.

      Africa is booming economically right now. Who knows? In our lifetime Africa might be full of prosperous countries, blacks might get rich and it will finally become fashionable to bash them. And by then AD might get bored of bashing the same old Indians, whites, East Asians, muslims etc very much like a man gets bored of banging the same girl over and over again even if she be a supermodel. So he might start craving some variety in hate the way your average man craves variety in sex partners.

      And lo presto! With a prosperous Africa, Blacks are now rich and no longer poor and downtrodden. And boom! we have ADs new post, “Why blacks will all die of something horrible and why that is a cause for celebration” or some such other psychopathic hymn of hate.

      My contempt for other people (and cultures) is primarily linked to their willingness to harm others based on pseudo-rational reasons. So, groups that behave like that frequently will attract my ire far more often than those that do not.

      Having said that, it is hard to deny that certain cultures are way more fucked up than others. Doubly so if they are keep on denying it via sophistic arguments.

      I don’t care much about what others are doing, as long as they do not (directly or indirectly) try to screw me over.

      • masculineffort
        October 21, 2014 at 10:42 pm

        @AD, on what basis do you say that Indians and East Asians are more willing to harm others than the groups you leave out such as blacks or Latinos?

        And if others are being harmed, why does it matter whether it is over a pseudo rational reason or just plain old, “I want it so I’ll take it” with no other reasons offered?

        Or is this just plain old, “I don’t interact a whole lot with Blacks and Latinos so they have not harmed me (or had the opportunity to do so). But I deal day in and day our with Indians and East Asians and some of those guys have tried to screw me over and so I hate them more than others” Is this your rationale?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: