Archive

Archive for September, 2018

More Thoughts on the Flaming Disaster of Kavanaugh’s Nomination

September 30, 2018 31 comments

Let me be upfront about something before we proceed any further. I had no real desire to write another post about the latest train-wreck in DC aka Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to Supreme Court. There are so many other interesting and consequential topics which I could have written about. Sadly, the shitshow surrounding nomination of that worthless loser has become national news and could have some pretty significant effects on immediate future- specifically outcome of November 2018 elections.

With that in mind, let me revisit what I wrote about that rich rapey mediocre prep-school jock a few days ago. It is my firm opinion that the idiots in Republican establishment should never have nominated somebody as widely despised as Kavanaugh. The recently publicized sexual assault accusations against him are only a small part of the litany of reasons he is seen in such poor light by establishment Democrats. Kavanaugh was, after all, part of the Kenneth Starr “investigation” as well as Bush43’s administration. But why is that such a bad thing?

This is where I start telling stuff you might not want to hear. You see.. protection of the rich and capitalist class from average people has always the main function of Supreme Court and through most of its history it has been a highly regressive institution. The Warren Court was perhaps the only time in history that it consistently ruled in a quasi-progressive manner. But how the court has ruled since the 1980s? Long story short, it has consistently ruled in favor of the rich, powerful and corporations and against average people- with exception of social issues.

But why do establishment Democrats care about who is appointed to the Supreme Court? As you all know, both establishment Democrats and Republicans are corporate whores. But, then shouldn’t their choice of candidates for that court be almost identical? Well.. for a long time that was indeed the case. There is a reason why most Supreme Court nominees, as late as the 1990s, were confirmed by an almost unanimous Senate vote. Sure, some were a bit to the right and some to the left – but by and large, they were predictable “centrists”.

Then the presidential election of 2000 happened and we know the role played by a slim majority of that court in appointing Bush43 as president. From that moment onwards, the Supreme Court (and appointments to it) were irreversibly politicized. Of course, there were other reasons for that change- ranging from changing demography of USA, irreversible decline of white male privilege, establishment Democrats support of identity politics to cover up their neoliberal belief etc.

And this brings us to why the nomination of Kavanaugh was such a bad idea. Once again to make a long story short, he was always seen as a rabid partisan figure by Democrats and there was no way they were going to confirm him. But could things have gone differently if that orange-haired buffoon had nominated a less controversial figure? What about somebody like Thomas Hardiman? For starters, the guy is a good corporate whore- just like his appointed predecessors. More importantly, his wife and in-laws are of Mexican descent and prominent democrats.

In other words, Hardiman in addition to having a compelling life story and being a good corporate whore could be relied upon to support progressive social causes. Sure, he would have only been 90% of the corporate whore Kavanaugh would be, but let us be realistic- it would be way easier to confirm him. In fact, even sad turtle face aka Mitch McConnell conveyed that to Trump on more than one occasion. But the dumbfucks in White House thought they knew better than everybody else and decided to nominate that post-menopausal woman-faced loser.

But why so much hate for this guy? Well.. it is way more than hate. I can foresee very plausible scenarios in which his confirmation (or even failed nomination) could have large impacts on the results of 2018 and 2020 elections. But before we go there, let us talk about why the sexual assault charges against him are so sticky and problematic. I kinda hinted to that in the previous paragraph by calling him a ‘post-menopausal woman-faced loser’. Still confused at what I am hinting at? OK.. let us do a thought experiment.

Imagine that the person nominated to the supreme court had the looks of a handsome masculine actor, rock star or sportsman. Now ask yourself, would sexual assault accusations by Christine Blasey Ford have been more credible or less credible? Would she have even accused him of sexual assault in the first place? Ok.. let me ask you a question, which might seem odd. Have you noticed a common thread running through almost every man who has lost his career because of accusations of sexual assault or harassment. Anything..

What about their looks or lack thereof? Have you noticed that the most famous scalps taken by the MeToo movement have been mediocre to ugly-looking men (Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, Roger Ailes etc) with either a lot of power or money? For some “odd” reason, handsome men with complicated sex lives such as such as Rob Lowe and Charlie Sheen (in their prime), music icons (Lenny Kravitz and almost every other famous male musician) and sport-stars just don’t seem to end up on MeToo lists. It is always the mediocre-looking guy (usually white) who got lucky and made a lot of money or came into some power.

But why is that so? The simple answer to that question is that looks, physicality and attitude are attractive to women in a way that money and power are just not. That is why the white wife of a white physician will gladly cheat on him with some mediocre musician- but the reverse will never happen unless money changes hands. Kavanaugh, you see, comes across an effeminate white guy who was born to rich parents, got into an expensive prep school and ivy-league university because of parents’s connection and glided through life despite his utter mediocrity.

To put it another way, this guy has not made many (if any) pussies wet- even in his twenties. And this is why those charges of sexual assault and general rapey behavior have turned out to be so sticky. He really looks like the rich but mediocre looking white guy who has to sexual assault women or otherwise compensate them to get laid. It does not help that he is such a terrible liar. To summarize, he instinctively looks and behaves like a mediocre-looking prep-school rapey asshole and most women are viscerally repulsed by guys like Kavanaugh.

But why does this matter? The simple answer is 2018 and 2020 elections. The slightly longer answer is that the Democratic party had been unable to come up with a program or issue which was strong or visceral enough to increase turnout among likely voters in the 2018 mid-term election. All that constant talk about Russia, Putin, Collusion was simply not influencing voters who are not already partisan. Then Trump gave them an unexpected gift by nominating an hypocritical and effeminate prep-school asshole who just happened to have done some pretty repulsive (at least for women) things when he was younger.

Now they have a highly emotive issue to constantly beat republican candidates over the head with and simultaneously increase turnout of their own voter base. And this is not going away whether, or not, he is confirmed. Indeed.. confirming him might be the greatest gift received by moribund establishment Democrats since the election of Trump. And ya.. he will almost certainly be subject to multiple criminal investigations once confirmed resulting in his impeachment (or resignation) within 2-3 years. Establishment republicans, being as pathetic as their Democratic counterparts, still think they can wing it by getting him confirmed. I guess that stupid people cannot (or won’t) find out any other way.

What do you think? Comments?

Varna and Jati aka ‘Caste’ System Was Hugely Damaging to Indians: 8

September 28, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I said that the general lack of critical thinking skills in most Indians is deeply linked to Indian style of parenting and whatever passes for ‘education’ in that country. Some might consider this to be a harsh assessment, and that is kinda true. However reality is what it is, whether we like it or not. Also, it is not possible to fix a problem if we keep on pretending that it does not exist. So let us start by first defining it.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of typical Indians, who are good at passing exams and tests, are also incredibly bad at applying that knowledge? To be fair, we see this problem in other parts of the world. However, for reasons we shall soon get into, the levels it reaches in India are just mind-boggling. But there is a weird twist to this story. Those who grew up outside India, or are otherwise atypical, do not display this shortcoming at a higher rate than other people.

In other words, this problem is cultural not biological. But isn’t it a rather odd problem? Think about it.. how can somebody capable of regurgitating all the ‘right’ answers have such a poor grasp of subject matter? Clearly, the person in question has good memory and no cognitive problems. So what is going on? Some might say that this is a consequence of the Indian ‘education’ system being based on rote memorization- and that is true. But why is that so?

Let me pose this question in another way. Would you eat at a restaurant where the cook could recite all the ingredients in his dishes and their preparation methods, but not cook well? You wouldn’t, and neither would most Indians. But for some reason, this state of affairs is normal in the Indian ‘education’ system. Why? And what does it have to do with the jati system? What prevents Indians from changing their way of doing things?

Moving on to a related problem, why do most Indians conflate knowledge with regurgitating the beliefs of famous people? Once again. you see this problem in other parts of the world, but for some reason, it reaches almost comical levels in most Indians. Why is deliberative and skeptical thinking so uncommon among typical Indians, especially the more ‘educated’. Why do most Indians display an unwillingness to think through problems on their own, pose inconvenient questions and be reasonably skeptical about whatever passes for knowledge.

And this brings us to the proximate cause of this dysfunction. Have you noticed that typical Indian parenting produces intellectually and emotionally crippled kids? To be clear, I am not suggesting that north-american parenting is especially good or free of problems. In fact, it has its unique set of dysfunctions. Having said that, it is hard to ignore that traditional Indian parenting is way more likely to create spineless kids with little capability for autonomous thinking or action.

But why? And why would parents do something like that to their own kids? Well.. the answer has to do with the jati or caste system. Have you ever wondered why the jati system sounds so alien to non-Indians? Could it be because belief in, and practicing, the jati system is not compatible with even basic levels of critical thinking? Let me put it this way.. you cannot simultaneously believe in the caste system and still be capable of critical thinking.

So how do you perpetuate the jati system and its wretched institutions such as social apartheid and arranged (historically child) marriage. Well.. the easiest way to do that is to brainwash your children from birth into believing all sorts of nonsense, blindly respecting ‘authority’, discouraging questions and personal agency etc. Traditional Indian parenting is about perpetuating the jati system by crippling the intellectual and emotional development of your own children

It is kinda analogous to breaking the legs of your slave so that he (or she) cannot escape and find a better life. And that is why, you see, children who grow in traditional Indian families have stunted intellectual and emotional development. But what does this have to do with the equally dysfunctional system of ‘education’ in India? A lot, actually. The system, you see, is not about producing competent individuals as much as it is about producing the appearance of education.

But that sounds totally nuts! Why would anybody want to produce the appearance of education rather than the real deal? As usual, the answer has to do with the mindset of those running the system. People who never received a real education and have a limited ability to think critically cannot fix a crappy system, because they are incapable of imagining a better system. You cannot be a good car mechanic, if you have no reference frame for a properly tuned car. Similarly people who are unable to think past what they learned in medical school make bad physicians.

In the next part, I hope to show you (in some detail) the intimate connection between poor group cohesion among Indians and jati system. This will help you understand why incredibly tiny armies of foreigners could conquer and rule large parts of India without any resistance from local population.

What do you think? Comments?

Some of the First Proto-Cities are Probably on Floor of Persian Gulf: 1

September 26, 2018 4 comments

In a a previous post, I promoted the idea that Rockall Bank, a now-submerged landmass (off the north-west of Ireland) might have been inhabited during last Ice Age. The idea that some of the most ancient human settlements are now underwater is hardly new. In fact we know that the ocean level during last ice age was around 80-100 meters lower than today and a good portion of the near continental shelf in many part of the world was above water. For example New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania were part of a larger formation known as Sahul. Similarly India and Sri Lanka was connected by a natural land bridge as was the Eastern most part of Asia and Western most part of North america via Beringia. I have also previously talked about Doggerland.

In other words, more than a few coast lines were noticeably different during the last ice age than they are today. But what does any of this have to do with lost proto-cities? As it turns out, much more than you might think at first glance. It is common knowledge that humans prefer building settlements close to the shores of large bodies of water or rivers. There is a reason why inland USA is sparsely populated as compared to both the coasts and you can see this pattern in many other parts of world and throughout human history. But what does any of this mean for locating as yet undiscovered proto-cities? Consider the Persian Gulf. Today, it is just a shallow extension of Indian ocean. But as late as even 9000 BC, a pretty large part of it was above water.

But how was the climate in that area during late ice age? Well.. currently available evidence suggests that it was a low-lying plain with multiple rivers draining it. It was also cooler and wetter than today. To put it another way, it had a quasi-Mediterranean climate albeit with bulk of precipitation in summer instead of winter. The climatic conditions, including availability of fresh water, were ideal for humans settlement. But could Humans have settled in that area? Based on currently available archaeological evidence, they most certainly did. So.. what is the point in writing this post? Haven’t we established that there were human settlements in that area?

And this is the part where I go beyond what most archaeologists think lies on seafloor of Persian Gulf. See.. even though we have now found large Neolithic sites from around end of last ice age, such as Göbekli Tepe and Nevalı Çori many prefer to believe that “real civilization” started after the ice age had ended. This is largely due to two factors. Firstly, we have still not found and large and organised neolithic settlements much older than 9,5000 BC. Secondly, the climate in many places which later became alleged “cradles” of civilization was not particularity pleasant during the last ice age. But what if places where humans first settled down are now underwater? What if many of the first proto-cities are now at bottom of Persian Gulf?

Some of you might point out that a number of people have previously written about the Persian Gulf being inhabited during the last ice age, and that is absolutely correct. I do however believe, unlike most of them, that settlements in what is today the Persian Gulf represented something between paleolithic hunter-gatherers and what we see in Sumer and subsequent Mesopotamian civilizations. Maybe the neolithic period started a few thousand years earlier than we currently believe. Perhaps the process of domesticating plants and animals also started a few thousand years before end of ice age. Maybe the remains of large neolithic religious sites and proto-cities lie under a couple of meters of sediment on the floor of Persian Gulf.

What do you think? Comments?

How CONservatives Screwed Themselves by Nominating Kavanaugh

September 24, 2018 16 comments

I was originally going to post about something less topical today. Then I decided to quickly share my views on how establishment CONservatives truly fucked themselves over by nominating Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. Some of you might counter by saying that his nomination might still be successful, and you know what.. that might very well be the case. But mark my words- if appointed, he will also be the first supreme court justice to be removed (either through formal impeachment or via some underhanded method) within next few years.

How did we end up in this situation, anyway? And was it inevitable? In my opinion, it comes down to a unique combination of hubris, stupidity and magical thinking on the part of CONservatives. To understand what I am talking about, let us go back to 2017 and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme court. You might recall that he was supposed to replace Antonin Scalia after that POS died in his sleep. Given that he was supposed to occupy the “CONservative” seat left vacant by Scalia, one might have expected stronger opposition from Democrats, especially given how republican senators scuttled Obama’s nominee for that seat.

And yet.. nothing like that happened. Heck, a few democratic senators even voted for him. So why did Gorsuch get such an easy confirmation, given all the issues Democrats should have had with his nomination? The conventional explanation is that they did not care much since he was a 1:1 replacement for a demented CONservative asshole- and there might be some truth to that. However, there is a far more obvious (and cynical) reason for their lack of ‘resistance’. Gorsuch, you see, was an otherwise non-controversial shill for business and corporate interests.

Sure.. he was also pro-gun, pro- “law and order” etc, but otherwise Gorsuch was just another establishment CONservative shill who could be trusted to reliably fellate the cause of corporate rights. Establishment democrats, being the pro-corporate whores they are, are perfectly fine with supporting plain CONservative supreme court nominees. Indeed, they prefer to have people like Gorsuch in the judicial system since it allows them to feign impotence in face of demands from their voter base. That is why they were so willing to speed up nomination of CONservative judges by the Trump administration in lower courts.

Then why was Kavanaugh’s nomination to the supreme court cursed from the beginning? Well.. it begins with his role in “investigation” of Clinton42 by Kenneth Starr in late 1990s. Kavanaugh’s senior role in that “investigative” team pretty much guaranteed that he would always be in the proverbial cross-hairs of establishment Democrats. His becoming a member of Bush43’s white house team, closeness to Karl Rove and subsequent appointment to a federal judgeship only increased the size of the proverbial red dot- and establishment Republicans knew that.

There is a reason why sad turtle face, aka Mitch McConnell, was not especially enthusiastic about Kavanaugh being nominated to the supreme court. He had a pretty good idea of the shit-storm this nomination was going to unleash, and frankly he did not see how Kavanaugh was a better corporate cock-sucker than other generic CONservative judicial nominees. But the idiots in the white house thought that his nomination would please their most delusional CONservative supporters. They just didn’t expect it to become such a big media circus.

So.. let us turn to the controversy surrounding his alleged history of sexual assault of women. What do I think about it? Did he do those things? Well.. given that he was a rich prep school kid from a white COnservative family, it is almost certain he did everything he has been accused of and worse. For example, I would not be surprised if tomorrow some woman accused him of date rape, drugging and raping, frequenting brothels which specialize in underage prostitutes, exchanging sex for professional favors etc.

That is how rich, white, allegedly CONservative men in USA with a drinking and gambling problem behave! I would not even be surprised if we someday find out that he molested one or both of his daughters. That guy has entitlement and poor impulse control written all over him. Those idiots should never have nominated somebody as intrinsically problematic and loathed by establishment Democrats as Kavanaugh. And it is not as if they did not have a stable of plain CONservative judges, who just love to fellate corporations, to choose from.

Which brings me to the hilarious and idiotic defenses of Kavanaugh’s character being mounted by CONservatives to save his nomination. As I have previously said, supporting a guy with so many skeletons in his closet is not the proverbial hill any sane person should be willing to die on. Then again, CONservatives seldom demonstrate an ability to think beyond whatever is immediately in front of them. They have also not fully understood why doing stupid things such as questioning the honesty of his female accusers in 2018 is such a bad idea. But why is that so?

Well.. it comes down to plausibility of those accusations, as opposed to their authenticity. As an example, if a woman accused Bill Clinton of staring at her body- we would all believe it without asking for further proof, simply because it fits with our previous experience and knowledge about his behavior and mindset. Similarly, an accusation of Trump cavorting with porn stars and washed-out playboy models does not require further evidence to be believable.

Kavanaugh’s public image is that of a spoilt and rich jock (with major alcohol problems) whose career trajectory was largely determined by the wealth and connections of his parents. Trying to rape a girl while drunk, or force another to blow him, sounds about right for a generic prep school CONservative jock. That is why, you see, those accusations are so sticky and will only get worse as time passes. Furthermore, they resonate very well with personal experiences of many women. Did I mention his alleged stance of Roe Vs Wade does not help his image. It will be interesting to see how much worse things will get if he is actually confirmed.

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Channel: Ancient Architects

September 23, 2018 4 comments

Sometime ago, I came across an interesting channel on YT. Before linking to it, let me quickly describe what it is about and my thoughts about it. To make a long story short, the channel is about whether conventional histories of ancient civilizations are true. Some might say that it has an ‘Ancient Aliens‘ vibe to it and there is some merit to that view. Then again, I have been around long enough to know that “scientific” consensus based on fragmentary or selective evidence is the secular version of religious dogma.

So should you believe everything on that channel? Of course not! Having said that, he does tackle topics for which conventional explanations provided by “credentialed experts” are pretty dubious sounding. For example, I have never been satisfied by explanation that the three great pyramids of Egypt were built by 4th dynasty Pharaohs for the simple reason that their names barely appear on those monuments. Contrast that to inscriptions on most other large ancient buildings in Egypt that go to considerable lengths to highlight name of Pharaoh who built them.

Similarly, Greek travelers to ancient Egypt wrote about certain large structures which have not yet been rediscovered. What happened to them? The conventional explanation for their absence is that they did not exist in first place, and that could well be the case. However a few of those alleged structures were quite large and in areas containing other evidence of human occupation and construction, so one cannot discount possibility that they have not yet been discovered.

Link to Channel: Ancient Architects

I should also point out that unlike many others whose explanations for large ancient monument involves intervention by aliens from space, this guy sticks to idea that humans built it. Furthermore, we now know that humans at end of last ice-age were far more advanced, capable and organised than was previously believed. In my opinion, his videos about specific topics are closer to reality while those on meta topics are far more speculative.

Clip # 1: Is Atlantis located on Rockall Bank, a now-submerged island, located northwest of Ireland? Many parts on that bank are less than 100 m below the surface, which would place them above sea level as late as 11k or even 9k years ago. Given that ocean current patterns in Atlantic were also a bit different at that time, it could also have even have been more habitable than today.

Clip # 2: This one is about the lost pyramids of lake Moeris in Egypt. As I mentioned previously, certain large monuments described in considerable detail by ancient Greek and Roman travelers to Egypt have not been rediscovered. The two pyramids and associated buildings in what was once an artificial lake is one of the better known instances of a ‘lost’ monument complex.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Sep 21, 2018

September 21, 2018 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: Sep 20, 2018 – Amateur cuties riding, reverse cowgirl style.

More Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: Sep 20, 2018 – More amateur cuties riding, reverse cowgirl style;

Doggystyled Cuties: Sep 21, 2018 – Amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

More Doggystyled Cuties: Sep 21, 2018 – More amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Varna and Jati aka ‘Caste’ System Was Hugely Damaging to Indians: 7

September 20, 2018 5 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how the jati or caste system as we know it today came into existence (at least in North India) sometime between the 3rd-5th century AD. I also pointed out that conventional religion-based explanations for its genesis cannot explain how Indic religions spread beyond India, but the caste system did not. The most rational explanation for this important and overlooked oddity, in my opinion, is that the jati system was imposed by the dominant regime of that time in North India, aka the Gupta dynasty. While some see the Gupta dynasty as the golden age of India, it was beginning of the end.

I was originally going to devote this post to highlighting the connection between jati system and complete lack of group cohesion among Indians. As some of you are aware, treacherous behavior with other Indians while simultaneously grovelling before non-Indians has been a consistent future of Indian history for at least 1,500 years. It then occurred to me that my explanation for this behavior, and its connection to jati, might require readers to first understand another related concept- which I had not previously discussed at length. So let us do that first and talk about why most Indians do not seem to have a concept of history or grasp of objective reality.

Let me start by asking you a somewhat odd question: Why are the most famous literary works written by Indians from before the 4th-6th century AD? Try naming a large original work of philosophy, science, art.. anything definitively authored by an Indian for at least a thousand years after 6th century AD. Or why are travelogues of ancient foreign travelers often the only available contemporary accounts for many periods in Indian history? Why is there a remarkable lack of old documents, other than some religious texts, in India? Did Indians lose the ability to write after 6th century AD? And how is this connected with an aversion to objective reality?

A few readers will correctly point out that something remarkably similar occurred in Europe after the western Roman empire collapsed in the 5th century AD. While there are certainly some similarities between two situations, there are also some important differences. For starters, there was no collapse of a centralized authority in India after 6th century AD, because it was always fairly decentralized. Similarly, there was no great technological or organisational regression in India after end of Gupta dynasty. Life just went on, as it had previously.

So what happened? Why did Indians stop writing anything new after 6th century AD ? Some of you might say that there was not much progress during those times to write about. However, as a visit to the nearest library or amazon’s website will show- most literature has nothing to do with science or technology and is usually about religious or secular mythology, popular stories and personal accounts. Perhaps it was the lack of printing press technology, then? Unlikely.. since Indians deliberately ignored the printing press for about 300 years after it was introduced by European traders and missionaries.

My point is that, the unwillingness of most Indians to care about history, let alone write it down, has little to do with availability of technology. Nearby countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand have far better written (and repeatedly transcribed accounts) of their history than India. But who did all that writing and re-transcribing of manuscripts in those countries? As it turns out it was Buddhist monks and priests who did it, just like their contemporary Christian and Muslim counterparts in other parts of the world. So why didn’t their Hindu equivalents do it?

The next concept is a bit hard to explain, so you have to sit through a few oddly phrased paragraphs. They are about how you believe what you believe aka Epistemology.

Why do most people living in USA agree that the 9/11 incident in NYC occurred on September 11, 2001 or the Pearl Harbor attack occurred on December 7, 1941? More importantly, why do we agree on certain objective stuff such as dates of both incidents even if we disagree on what or who (subjective stuff) caused those incidents? Also, how many of you were actually present at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or in downtown NYC on September 11, 2001? Readers might point to the huge amount of photographic evidence for both incidents and numerous accounts by survivors. But why has this evidence not been lost by now?

Isn’t that a strange question? But ask yourself, why should people record and remember things which occurred years and decades ago? Do you remember what you had for lunch and dinner on September 11, 2001? I can.. BTW. So why do we remember certain events better than others? Emotional response to, and psychological impact of, an event has a major effect on how well we recall it. But there is a far bigger reason, namely the impact of said event on future events. But how can an event have a much larger effect than itself? The answer is that people who witnessed or came to know about said event often feel part of same group or solidarity with those involved.

In other words, events that elicit strong feelings of personal involvement and group solidarity within a large number of people (beyond those affected by said events) become part of historical record. Those that did not, usually get lost in the sands of time. But what does any of this have to do with the general lack of interest in recording, preserving or reading about history in India. Ask yourself, was group solidarity beyond one’s immediate jati possible in India once the jati system became established? And if there was no solidarity beyond one’s jati, why would most people care to remember or record events that did not affect them?

Some of you might say.. “fair enough, this would seriously hamper the ability to write a unified historical narrative- but wouldn’t people in each jati keep writing their own history?”. You know what.. that might very well have been the case. But ask yourself, who will do a better job of archiving information- large bureaucratic organisations or small unstable groups. There is a good reason for why monks and clergy in the medieval era were very effective at preserving old literature in addition be writing down newer contemporary material. Having an organized and dedicated guild of archivists is much more effective for preserving information than isolated and unorganized efforts.

But didn’t India have Brahmins? Well.. ya, tons of them. But unlike the priests or monastic orders in monotheistic religions, there were many hundreds of mutually antagonistic jatis within the Brahmnin varna. It was quite normal to have half a dozen mutually antagonistic Brahmin jatis in medium-sized towns in ancient India. So basically each Brahmin jati was fighting constant turf wars with other Brahmin jatis in that area, with each trying to show the others that it had higher status than them. The jati system, far from reducing inter-group competition for jobs and occupation, ended up making it much worse. And guess what they were not writing..

But what does this have to do with Indians often having a rather poor grasp of objective reality? How does extreme social fragmentation, constant bickering and endless turf battles alter one’s grasp of reality? Let me explain that with another example. Do you believe that an antibiotic can cure an infection caused by a bacterial species susceptible to it? I am guessing almost every single one of you believe that- but how do you know that this explanation is correct? Most of you aren’t microbiologists or physicians, right?

One source of your belief comes from personal experience with having taken an antibiotic for some infection, another from knowing the basics of how they work, a third from ready access to a large body of experimental data from multiple sources and lastly it is also your own trust (faith) in the medical system. So how does it work in a highly fragmented society where everyone is trying to screw everyone else? Short answer.. it does not. In India, most people will take an antibiotic to treat an infection based on nothing more than blind faith. But why? Aren’t they as curious about the world around them as anybody else?

And this is where I have to open another can of worms. Have you ever noticed that adult Indians seem to have considerable difficulty with objective thinking and critical analysis of problems? Why is that so? My theory is that it has a lot to do with defective parenting and education, and yes.. that too is connected to the jati system. More about that in upcoming part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

There are Two Pathways for Trump’s Presidency to Implode in Real-Life

September 18, 2018 19 comments

As longtime readers might know, I have written more than a few posts about Trump in the past. To quickly summarize, my early and consistent predictions that Trump would win the Republican nomination and Presidency came true. I then went on to predict that his presidency would be a shit-show of epic proportions, which was rather easy, including the parts of his agenda (or lack thereof) that would start the process of sinking his presidency. My predictions that neither the “Russia-gate” non-scandal nor constant personal attacks against him by establishment politicians and corporate media would affect his favorability ratings among republican voters, have held out.

To put it another way, I have been correct about a lot of things concerning this particular topic. And that brings me to the subject of this post. Long story short, I now see two distinct and likely pathways for the Trump presidency to implode or become impotent (metaphorically) for the remainder of his term. But before we go there, let us talk about what will not bring him down. Far too many idiots are hoping for some Deus ex machina -type plot device to save the “good people of USA and its alleged democratic system from that bad man”. You might recall that the 2016 HRC campaign tried a similar approach and it failed in a spectacular fashion.

So let us start by first disabusing ourselves of the myth that american presidents, throughout history, have been good human beings or anything even remotely close. It is telling that most american presidents can be put into four categories: slave-owners, fat corrupt losers, hardcore racists and jingoistic warmongers. Of course, this has not stopped the political establishment and most americans of below-average intelligence from trying to portray these creatures as “heroes”. Heck, as we speak, the establishment is busy trying to rehabilitate the legacy of a president as brain-damaged and disastrous as G. W. Bush.

By the standards set by his 44 predecessors, Trump is not even an especially bad president. His biggest flaw, as far as the establishment is concerned, is that he is does not have the ability to lie to any useful degree while simultaneously doing horrible things. Most people who are not partisan democrats can, of course, see this and is the reason why personal attacks by corporate media, entertainment celebrities and establishment types had essentially no effect on his popularity- which was always rather low. That is also why the “Russia Gate” scandal is not sticking to him in spite of the unceasing efforts by those types of people.

So what could cause his presidency to crash and burn or lose so much public support that it will functionally impotent? Well.. there are two types of scenarios under which that could occur.

1] A prolonged trade war with the rest of the world, but especially China, would be extremely disastrous for his presidency. As many of you know, Trump seems to be obsessed with balance of trade with other countries. It is also one of the very few issues where his actions as president are somewhat consistent with what he said during his presidential campaign. So what is the problem with trying to “negotiate” better trade agreements with other countries? Isn’t USA the biggest global market or something like that? Aren’t some countries pretending to compromise?

Sadly (or not), USA is in no position to win a trade war- especially with China. For starters, most of the manufacturing capacity within USA left it for places like Mexico and China, a long time ago. More importantly, the supply chains for many products necessary to keep USA running are now almost entirely outside USA. The USA does not manufacturer much nowadays other than raw materials and agricultural products, some high-end CPUs and electronics, shiny but worthless weapons systems and various forms of entertainment. Don’t believe me? Just look around you and try finding value added products that are mostly made in USA.

But.. but.. who other than USA will buy Chinese products? What about everybody else in the whole fucking world! In case you haven’t noticed, most of the industrialized and industrializing world is as dependent on Chinese manufacturing as USA. The global penetration of a wide range of Chinese products, from smartphones and computers to construction equipment, textiles and chemicals, is so thorough that even large countries such as India are now approaching the levels of dependency of USA on Chinese manufacturing. Let us also not forget their internal market which has grown by leaps and bounds within last two decades.

And there is more! The Chinese government, unlike its american counterpart, has an extremely high level of control over ostensible private corporations and financial institutions within that country. They can disrupt important supply chains, screw with local operations of american corporations and target specific industries in USA with a degree of precision which their american counterparts cannot even imagine. The ability of USA to do the same to China is extremely limited and with the recent drama surrounding ZTE, you can rest assured that China is going to start pumping out its own high-end CPUs and other specialized chips within the next 2-4 years.

It certainly does not help that Trump’s outdated beliefs have simultaneously antagonized the other big trading partners of USA. Related to this has been the growing american tendency to use its legacy power in global banking to “punish” countries from Russia and Iran to China. While this trend, at least in its modern incarnation, started under Clinton- both Obama and Trump have pushed the use of such measures to the extent that other large countries simply use alternative financial networks. In a previous era (perhaps as late as 2008), such measures might have been somewhat effective because USA was the largest economy- in real terms.

To make a long story short, any prolonged trade war will result in the american dollar (and connected banking system) having an increasingly smaller part to play in international trade. As things stand today, USA is neither the world’s largest economy in real terms nor the biggest manufacturer of anything that people actually need. China, other Asian countries and rest of world on the other hand will just increasingly trade via alternate currencies and banking networks. Trump’ stupidity is only speeding up this inevitable process. And we are not even talking about the havoc that China could play on market values of american corporations. Also, no other country on earth today has capability to manufacture things on a large-scale like China.

2] Let us, now, talk about the consequences of new wars. As many of you know, Saudi Barbaria and that Zionist state want Uncle Sam to fight full-scale wars against Iran and Syria. Of course, they don’t care about consequences and outcomes of such wars or the monetary costs of these misadventures- or maybe, they have not thought through these issues carefully. Regardless, both potential conflicts are highly problematic- albeit for different reasons. Iran is far larger, much more united and way more populous than Iraq. Imagine invading a country that makes most of its own weapons, is about 1/5 th the size of USA and about 1/4 th the population. Did I mention that they fought a pretty long war with heavy casualties for eight years?

But.. but.. wouldn’t “superior” american airpower decimate their air-force or something like that? Well.. have a look at the location of that country and the major route for global oil transport. Do you really think that USA can keep the strait of Hormuz open- even if they had three aircraft carrier groups stationed next to that bottleneck? Did I mention they have tons of good anti-ship missiles, not to mention other means of disrupting oil transport directly. Then there is the issue of what their less-official forces might do with missiles to oil storage hubs on coast of Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries. Remember that they do not have to be especially effective to disrupt global flow of oil and send prices through the roof. Who wants to pay 300-400$ per barrel of oil?

Moving on to the situation in Syria- do you really think that any open military confrontation between Russia and USA over that country is going to end well? If you do, please get your head examined. The simple fact, is that, in 2018 nobody within Russia is seriously looking for some worthless “compromise” with USA. They have watched USA arm its east-European neighbors, try to annex Crimea via Ukraine, promote Islamic terrorism in their country and in general- try to destroy them by any means. To put it bluntly, any open armed confrontation between USA and Russia in Syria won’t remain restricted to that region. You do know that Russia has thousands of deliverable nuclear weapons, right? These conflicts have a tendency to escalate in ways one might not expect.. or want.

Which brings me to the situation with DPRK, or more precisely the hilarious lies that are being constantly regurgitated by state department about Kim Jong-un promising to unilaterally denuclearize after his first summit with Trump. First of all, he never promised anything along those lines. Secondly, the guy (and his close counsel) are very smart people who are fully aware that any agreement with USA is not worth the paper it was written on- unless you have ability to reliably nuke large cities on mainland USA. So ya, they are not giving up their nukes or ICBMs. Sure.. they might do some more meaningless confidence-building measures that look good on paper or video- but that is as far they will go. And guess what, South Korea is fine with that.

To summarize, Trump faces the prospect of a humiliating defeat in any trade war with rest of the world- but especially China. He is up against someone with far more capabilities than him, and they know it. They also know how to squeeze the proverbial balls of american corporations in ways that Trump cannot even imagine. As you might know, continued republican support for Trump has always been linked to not touching their corporate masters or interfering with their scams. Few republicans would be able to support Trump if a trade war with China cuts into the market valuations and profit margins of their corporate masters.

Similarly, starting any new war with Iran, Russia or DPRK would be most problematic for Trump. But I don’t think he understands that especially given the influence Of Saudi and other gulf state money and AIPAC in USA. In the best case scenario, it would fuck up oil supply and prices to levels beyonf ability of current system to adapt. Worst case scenario, we will find out how effective Russian or DPRK nukes are under real-life conditions. I am guessing that is not something any of us want to find out.. right?

What do you think? Comments?

Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage: 1

September 16, 2018 65 comments

As long-time readers of this blog will recall, some of my oldest posts have been about how to use escorts (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4), how I started using escorts (link 5) and why escorts are a better deal that ‘real’ women (link 6, link 7 and link 8 and link 9). I did not write on that subject again for a few years, but did answer those who asked me further questions about that topic. Some might wonder as to why I did not keep you guys updated about my continuing exploits with escorts over the last few years. Well.. it is kinda like why people who frequent restaurants (and are not food critics or social media whores) don’t keep writing about the joys of eating in them.

One can say the sky is blue and ice is cold only so many times before it becomes highly repetitive and boring- rather like those endless superhero movie sequels. I am not in the business of selling a lifestyle, seminars, books, supplements etc. My personal choice to use escorts and encourage their use by others is something which I believe in as a matter of principle. Having said that, I thought it would be a good idea to write something new on the subject, especially as it relates to the effects of using escorts for a decade and half, by now. You do remember that I first started using them when I was in my early 20s, right?

So, it has been a pretty long time since I first went down that path and still have no regrets whatsoever about taking it. Everything I wrote on this blog, years ago, was correct to a degree which continues to surprise me even today. My insights on, for example, how relationships and marriage are a shitty deal for most men turned out to be better projections of the evolution of relationship between the sexes in western countries since that time. I also was correct in pointing out that ‘game’ and ‘seduction’ were inherently flawed belief systems, since they did not address the fundamental dysfunction which resides at the heart of this problem.

In my opinion, the core disconnect between men and women in allegedly developed countries comes down to a gross misalignment of checks and incentives. To put it bluntly, there are no consequences for a woman if she decides to do anything from divorce her husband out of the blue, dump her boyfriend for no good reason, give sexual favors to advance her career and call it sexual assault later, force her male child to grow up as a tyranny and pretty much anything else along those lines. Contrast this to the public outrage and pillorying faced by a guy who attempts the male equivalent of those actions and behavior.

And let us not kid ourselves.. whatever is left of MRA-ism, conventional MGTOW-ism, most ‘game’ and ‘seduction’ communities is a big fucking joke as are the pathetic attempts to restore masculinity by alt-right idiots. Pretty much every supposedly “masculine” community is filled with captain save-a-hoes, delusional incels, shlubby white guys who end with Asian chicks, “reformed” players and other virtue pimps- not to mention all those greedy losers who want to sell you everything from bitcoin schemes, dietary supplements, books on positive thing and “perseverance porn”. In other words, there is not much real help from conventional sources for the average guy who wants to have sex with at least semi-attractive girl who can get him consistently hard.

There are a few good sources for advice on what to do once in a relationship, but they are not terribly helpful if you don’t have one in the first place. Sure.. you could try Tinder or some other dating/hook-up site/app and meet a few girls. Maybe you could even end up having have occasional sex or short-term relationships with some of them. But we keep coming back to the same problem, namely that most men can’t get a better deal than some sad relationship with a treacherous woman they can barely tolerate or a series of uncertain and irregular sexual encounters with women they would rather not be seen with. The key words being “most men”.

Which brings me the reason I started writing about using escorts in the first place. To quickly summarize: life is too short to endure a series of shitty relationships or quasi-relationships with women who don’t care about you and are nowhere as good-looking as you would like, in the hopes that you will one day have a pleasant relationship with some woman who is reasonably ok-looking and not likely to screw you over or financially exploit you for rest of life. I say.. just cut the middleman and make it explicitly transactional. Sure, you are not going to find a soul-mate that way- but how many people around you have found one, and not for the lack of trying!

To those who object to the financial exchange inherent in such interactions- it is way cheaper than divorce, child-support, alimony not to mention the costs of shitty dates and vacations. Face it- unless you are a famous, handsome, physically buff or financially successful guy, you are not getting it for free with anyone beyond an average-looking chick. And if you are fine with an average looker, that is your choice. I am just pointing out that there are far better options, if you are willing to think and act outside the prison of conventional feminized social conditioning.

In upcoming posts of this new series, I will explore (in some detail) about how using escorts for a pretty long time has changed the way I see women and the world in general. Yes, it does change your world view to the point where normie relationships usually appear sad, pathetic and meaningless. But it does more than that, you see. It changes your perspective on society, humanity and what you believe is possible or worthwhile in areas that are not even remotely connected to sex. It provides you the ultimate outsider perspective on human beings a species.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that you do it for reasons not connected to having sex with semi-attractive (or better) women.. but ya, it does change how you see the world in ways most of you would not ever imagine.

What do you think? Comments?

Public Trust in Medical Profession, Especially in USA, Will Keep Dropping

September 14, 2018 11 comments

Long time readers, of this blog, know that I am highly skeptical and downright critical of anything pushed under the name of “science”, “scientific consensus” or “objective experts”. A good part of my skepticism and distrust on these issues comes down to the fact that I have a PhD in a STEM discipline, and have witnessed too many examples of people getting famous through what later turned out to be shitty or deceptive research. Furthermore, I have been around long enough to see multiple 2-4 year cycles of some new technology being hyped to the moon and beyond before being exposed as a very modest improvement over the previous status quo, at best!

Readers might also know that I have quite critical of what passes for research and standards of knowledge in medicine. In the past, I have also written a bit about why public trust in the medical profession (especially in USA) has taken a real beating since the mid-1990s. To summarize what I have said before: there are a number of interacting factors behind the significant and continuous drop in public perception of physicians (and surgeons) over previous two decades. Some of these are unrelated to the practice of medicine, per se.

For example, currently available drugs and medical technologies are that efficacious for treating chronic diseases in aging populations (USA in 2018) compared to acute and sub-acute conditions in younger populations (USA between 1950s and 1990s). Similarly, factors unrelated to practise of medicine such as financialism and managerialism in pharma sector has (permanently) ruined its ability to produce truly innovative drugs since mid-2000s. Not to mention the fact that most biomedical research published in top peer-reviewed journals, nowadays, suffers from poor reproducibility or is usually of dubious value- to put it charitably.

Having said that, some reasons are quite specific to the practice of medicine- especially in USA. And that is what I intend to focus on, in this particular post. But let me first talk a bit about conventional “explanations” for decline in public trust of the medical profession. These typically range from “dumb patients are looking up things on the internet”, “everyone thinks we are too greedy” to “I, alone, know the truth”. These so-called explanations are however nothing beyond reactive ad-hominem insults, for reasons that will soon become obvious.

So let us begin by talking about one of the most overlooked reason for decline in public trust in that profession. I bet many of you did not even consider this issue..

1] In a previous era (upto early 1990s), most people who went to medical school were clever nerds who wanted an upper-middle class lifestyle and some social respect. More importantly, they came from a far wider range of social classes than today. It was, for example, quite common to see people who grew up in working class or average middle-class families get into medical school and become doctors. Some accuse the older system of favoring a certain gender or race, and there is some truth to that- but because that is how everything else was during that era.

Somewhere in the 1990s, that changed.. a lot. Now it was no longer sufficient to be a fairly clever nerd. Now you had to be a self-promoter with a pretty big ego. Not sure what I am talking about? Well.. ask anybody in the know if you can get into medical school today without having done some sort of “volunteering to help the poor”, “extracurricular activities” or anything else which showed your “leadership potential”? But isn’t that a good thing, you might ask. Isn’t it good to have some “life experience”? Shouldn’t future physicians have a “more well-rounded personality”?

Well.. maybe in theory. In reality, only kids whose parents are already upper-middle class have the financial wherewithal to fund their kids useless volunteering work among some community, start some worthless and dishonest shell charity or get their into some unpaid internship through their own personal connections. This leaders to selecting people with an extra-large ego, penchant for bullshit and tendency for virtue signalling. In other words, you are now selecting dishonest and extra-shifty assholes instead of plain assholes.

This is why other well-educated and financially well off people are the most distrustful of medical profession. I mean.. they have grown up around those getting accepted in medical schools since mid-1990s and often know them in social settings. The fact that social and economic peers of physicians usually have the lowest opinion about their professional competence tells you a lot about the type of person graduating from medical schools since mid-1990s, especially in USA. And yes.. this is far less pronounced in west-european countries where medical schools still prefer the clever status-seeking plain nerd over an egoistical, bullshit-spewing fake persona.

But people will, you see, tolerate vain egoistical assholes- if they can deliver. And that brings us to the second problem.

2] Consider for a moment, how revolutionary the progress of medical science was between mid-1930s (introduction of sulfonamides) to the late-1980s (ability to cure almost any infectious disease, perform any surgery safely, a host of non-invasive imaging technologies and advanced life-support technology in ICU units). Since then, the pace of progress has been rather slow- to put it mildly. Sure.. there have advances related to better use of existing drugs and technology and a few major ones for uncommon diseases. But the ability to successfully treat common chronic diseases from osteoarthritis and chronic renal failure to Alzheimers and most forms of solid cancers is not significantly better than what it was in early 1990s.

Sure.. newer drugs are less toxic and our use of existing drugs and other treatment modalities has gotten better- but face it, we are as close to curing Alzheimers , Parkinsons, Type 2 Diabetes, most metastasized cancers and many other chronic illnesses as we were in the 1990s. To put it another way, we still suck at treating most chronic illnesses- which becomes a big issue since populations in developed countries are significantly older than they were in the 1960s and 70s. But why is that such a problem? After all, physicians are only human.. right?

Well.. it would not have been much of a problem if the “healthcare” system in USA resembled that of any other country in western Europe. But it doesn’t. More specifically, an important justification for the relatively high payscales of physicians in USA has been the implicit promise that they are the “best in the world” and “they will find a cure for X disease”. As many of you might have figured out by now, the lack of progress in those areas for almost three decades has pretty much demolished that justification. Even worse, the average life-expectancy in most European countries is 2-3 years longer than in USA.

But it gets worse..

3] Another way to justify the high pay of physicians in USA and cost of “healthcare” has been the obsession with endless tests, new drugs, new gizmos and pretty much anything which creates the appearance of doing something extra. As some of you might be aware, endless testing, use of the newest drugs and gizmos in the american system has not improved the outcome of treatment as measured by changes in life-expectancy. Indeed, in many chronic diseases such as most common cancers, there is evidence that the incidence of false positives in many early diagnostic tests lead to aggressive treatment which does not improve overall prognosis while costing a lot more than a conservative approach to diagnosing and treating such illness.

It certainly does not help that physicians have been associated with many other bad, but once fashionable, public health ideas in living memory. We all remember how the belief that dietary carbs were good while all fat was bad was the default dietary advice for many decades. Who can forget the ceaseless promotion of aerobic exercise over muscle-strengthening for better cardiovascular and overall health? Or what about the aggressive promotion of extra-low sodium diets based on dubious data? I could write an entire series or book about the bullshit promoted by physicians in USA for last few decades, but we have to move on.

We cannot also forget how drugs of questionable efficacy but high costs have been prescribed since the late-1980s. Just think of how easily doctors prescribed SSRIs to anybody with even mild reactive depression or anything resembling depression (regardless of whether it helped them) or how newer anti-psychotics were prescribed for everything from atypical depression, agitation in patents with senile dementias and children with ADHD- even if made them worse. Or what about prescribing anti-hypertensives without paying much attention to co-morbidities? Or statins for primary prevention of heart attacks in people at low risk at such an event. Once again.. I could go on and on about this sub-topic.

But we have to move on to what I think is the real clincher or proverbial straw..

4] Physicians, for better or worse, are the public face of “healthcare” in USA and everywhere else. To put it another way, most non-physician related problems within a healthcare system will cast an aura over public perception of physicians. So.. for example, surprise costs caused by being treated by out of network doctors will cause hurt their public perception. Similarly, the unwillingness of insurance companies to pay for certain drugs or surgeries will color public perception of them. Long story short, most of the problems caused by the peculiarities of what passes for “healthcare” in USA will hurt public perception of physicians.

And then there is the ghost of 2008, or more specifically what happened to job and income stability for most people in USA after the 2008 global financial crisis. Once again- to make a long story short, physicians were among the few well-known professions which did not suffer significant loss of income or job precariousness since 2008. It is as if the party continued for them- despite their questionable behavior, habit of promising too much, inability to deliver, being wrong on major issues and being associated with other groups than average people hate.

In other words, most people in USA now see physicians in the same light as banksters who totaled the economy in 2008 and got bailed out, corrupt pharma executives who incessantly raise price on old drugs resulting in suffering of patients or middle management in large anonymous corporations who facilitate daily abuse and humiliation of average workers to satisfy their superiors. That is not good company to be seen in.. Anyway, I might edit this post a bit later and insert a few links if necessary.

What do you think? Comments?

Varna and Jati aka ‘Caste’ System Was Hugely Damaging to Indians: 6

September 11, 2018 4 comments

In the previous post of this series, I put forth my hypothesis to explain how vegetarianism got associated with “Hinduism” and the caste system- and also why religious vegetarianism was never able to spread out of India. Long story short, I blame vegetarianism, the ‘jati’ system and many other ills afflicting India even today on the Gupta dynasty and its immediate successors in North India. To be more specific, it is my belief that the Gupta dynasty was responsible for promoting a socio-economic system, which basically froze Indian society into the 5th-6th century AD. But how could they convince so many to go along with such a stupid system?

The answer to that question is quite easy, but requires you to first accept that most human beings (irrespective of race) are quite pathetic creatures. Now, let me explain how the jati system in India got popular by comparing it to something far closer to our era. Have you ever wondered why even poor white people in the “south” of USA were so accepting and supportive of racism against blacks? How did the dumb and half-starved white sharecropper get the idea that he (or she) was somehow intrinsically superior to their black counterparts?

Well.. here is a quote from a speech by MLK Jr on this subject.

If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow.

And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion. Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses alike resulted in the establishment of a segregated society.

They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they segregated southern mores from the rich whites; they segregated southern churches from Christianity; they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; and they segregated the Negro from everything.

Now replace the concept of race with jati and you can get a pretty accurate understanding of how the caste system became popular and self-perpetuating. Did I mention that the Gupta dynasty rulers came from a lineage of Jainism-inspired Banias? The formation of many hundreds of castes, each one involved in one particular occupation and being endogamous, allowed society to become fragmented to an extent which makes the situation in the antebellum south look quaint by comparison. And yes.. entire castes of untouchables were the Indian version of blacks in the “old” south. And now you can see why the caste system was so fucked up.

But why did it fragment Indian society far more than slavery and its aftermath did to USA? Well.. because Hinduism as a religion never had the concept of human equality, either in its old or newer form. More importantly, it had no unified ideology. So the jatis kept on fragmenting further till, as I mentioned in a previous part, you ended up in a situation where even small villages had with multiple jatis who had basically zero informal social interaction with each other. And this went on.. and on.. for many centuries. But it gets worse, much worse.

To better understand what I going to say next, let me ask you a series of questions which might at first seem unrelated to the caste system. Ever wonder why China, and not India, became the preeminent global manufacturing superpower over previous three decades. Also, why was it a big manufacturer and exporter before 1800, in contrast to India which mostly imported either raw goods or a few niche luxury products? How can China reverse engineer and manufacture pretty much anything it wants with such ease and speed while India often struggles to manufacture pretty basic things? But what does this have to do with caste, you may ask..

Well.. let us explore another related phenomenon. Why did India never have guilds of craftsmen like medieval Europe, even though it had way more craftsmen? Why was there never any Indian equivalent of the Freemasons? Why did the social status of skilled craftsmen (masons, weavers, blacksmiths, carpenters) in India never reach anything close to that enjoyed by their medieval European counterparts? Why did Indian craftsmen never seem to innovate or develop better methods unlike the European counterparts? why did Indian craftsmen never get into doing things such as building printing press, typesetting, lens making, quality gunpowder making, quality gunsmithing, building newer designs of sailing ships etc?

In a previous post of this series, I stated that manual labor (even skilled) was looked down in India after jati system became established. But that is, at best, only part of the answer. The jati system, you see, had two even more disastrous effects on the status of manual laborers in India. Firstly the extreme fragmention of Indian society under that system made close co-operation between two (or more jatis) involved in building part of a larger system almost impossible. For example, those who made sails for ships were of a different jati than those involved in making its wooden frame or the rigging. And we have not even got to those who actually crewed those vessels. Adoption of printing press in India probably ran into similar issues, since they ignored it for over 300 years after its introduction.

Under the jati system, everyone was trying to upstage, screw over and sabotage everybody else. But its worse.. if that is even possible! The jati system was heavy on passing down closely guarded skills to your children and tradition. Consequently, even lateral outsiders (similar social status) could not get in a different jati and try to improve or innovate. Also the mindless way these skills were taught ensured that the next generation of craftsmen never did things differently- and most importantly, in a better way. That is why Indian craftsmen never updated their tools, methods or technology until it was too late. Also, in case you did not get it yet, that is also why they did not have anything close to the guild structure found in medieval European societies.

And now let us talk about why the manufacturing sector in India, even today, is weak compared to those in other countries of similar population size such as China. Long story short, the wages of a skilled manual laborer in China are over three times his (or her) Indian equivalent even after accounting for stuff such as exchange rates and purchasing power. But why is it so problematic? Well.. for one, higher wages often attract more competent people who are interested in doing a good job. But there is only one part of the answer. The other, and more important part, is that workers who are well compensated and not constantly disrespected tend to do a far better job, are significantly more productive and willing to accept doing things in a newer or better way.

In the next post on this topic, I will try to explain you how jati system is the main reason behind the well-known predisposition of Indians to betray others of their type while groveling in front, and kissing ass, of outsiders.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Sep 11, 2018

September 11, 2018 2 comments

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Drawings of Caned Cuties: Sep 3, 2018 – Drawings of cuties getting caned.

Drawings of OTK Spanked Cuties: Sep 3, 2018 – Drawings of cuties getting spanked OTK.

Drawings of Spanking Ready Cuties: Sep 3, 2018 – Drawings of cuties ready to get spanked.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

The NRA, in its Current Form, Does Not Have a Promising Future

September 10, 2018 6 comments

I am not the first person to point out that the NRA might not have a promising future. The big difference, however, between almost every article on that subject and this one is that I support the right to bear arms- and not just in some contrived “sportsman” context. For example- it is my opinion that ownership restrictions on short-barreled rifles in the 1934 NFA act and the 1986 FOPA act which banned the civilian ownership of select-fire (automatic) weapons manufactured after that year are classic examples of legislative stupidity.

As many of you also know, I have written more than a few posts in the past stating the reasons behind my belief that ‘gun control’ is a stupid idea with no real upside to the dumbfucks who support it. In other words, I am totally on board with the core purpose of the NRA. So why do I think that the organisation in question does not have a bright or promising future. Well.. there are a few reasons, but let me start by telling you what they are not.

Many coastal LIEbrals, who I hate with the same intensity as CONservatives, want to make themselves believe that younger generations will magically support gun control. Sadly for them, that pattern is somewhat true in less than half a dozen coastal states and even is mostly an urban thing. In other words, this pattern is meaningful only within the small social bubble inhabited by the incestuous “elite” and their professional class cocksuckers.

So why did I say that the NRA does not have a promising future? And why did I use that ‘in its current format’ conditionality? So here is why I said what I did..

1] As some of you might have noticed, a lot of the media outreach effort by the NRA today is about issues not related to defense of the 2nd amendment. For example, they spend too much time and effort on trying to demonize socialism, support “free” enterprise and denigrate populist ideas such as universal health care. Now, I know they are doing that.. *cough* corporate donors. But don’t kid yourself that supporting issues which are against the best interests of vast majority of their current membership and potential future members is a smart idea.

See.. the problem with being associated with bad ideas, bullshit and outright lies is that their stench rubs onto you. That is why, for example, people in 2018 are far more distrustful of the medical profession that they were in the 1980s. That is why Trump beat all establishment republican candidates and then Hillary in the 2016 election season. That is also why the non-stop concerted effort by establishment media to demonize Trump has paradoxically helped him by making him look like a victim. You get my point.. right?

Similarly the NRA, by publicly associating itself with pro-corporate ideologies, is digging itself into a hole. To be clear, this would not have been an issue as late as mid-1990s when most people in USA were doing fine or at least OK. But they haven’t been doing so well since 2001 and most certainly since 2008. There is a reason why the alt-right and many younger conservative-minded people are quite Ok with “socialist” ideas such as universal health care, inexpensive education, job guarantees, universal basic income and restricting corporate power.

My point is that associating yourself with ideas which your most likely followers don’t particularly care about, or actively disagree with, is not a recipe for promoting your main cause. In fact, doing so will certainly hurt the viability of your main cause in years to come- and that is going to be much sooner than you think. And yes.. once again, I know why they do it. I am just saying that they are taking a stupid and unnecessary risk.

2] The other big problem for NRA in the future is that it is still widely, and correctly, perceived as a white gun owners organisation. Once again, being an organisation which drew its membership almost exclusively from whites was a viable strategy till about twenty years ago. But as any person with more than half a brain knows today, that is not a great strategy- either in the USA of 2018 or any time after that. Any organisation which wants to remain relevant even 10-15 years from now better have a realistic strategy to recruit from other ethnic groups.

Of course, the incompetent “marketing consultants” employed by that organisation have managed to find a few non-white faces. Sadly, the losers they have found so far are.. to put it mildly.. laughably bad. People with infomercial level acting skills who can’t even read off their teleprompters and cue cards with conviction are poor brand ambassadors- plain and simple. Sadly, that is only one part of this particular problem.

The other part involves the almost complete unwillingness of this organisation to defend 2nd amendment rights of non-white people, especially those murdered by the police. Once again, I know they are doing that because a non-insignificant part of their core membership and supporters today are from the “law enforcement” agencies. But here is the problem.. it might work right now, but what about 10-15 years from now? The Stasi of former East-Germany also had a lot of power and prestige until that country lasted, but not much afterwards.

The problems I see in the future of that organisation, therefore, largely come down to significant irreconcilability between their current donor and membership cadre and the ones they attract in order to stay relevant in the near future. Frankly, I don’t see them being able to make this transition. Maybe some new moment or organisation, without legacy issues, will be able to exploit this opportunity.

What do you think? Comments?

Varna and Jati aka ‘Caste’ System Was Hugely Damaging to Indians: 5

September 8, 2018 7 comments

In the previous part of this series, I showed you how and why the arranged marriage system in India is not ancient or about anything beyond maintaining the “genetic purity” of each jati or caste. I also pointed out that endogamy among a continuously fragmenting bunch of jatis has produced some of more uglier and defective specimens of humanity- not to mention that the custom of arranged marriage in India has historically been a euphemism for child marriage. But sex and marriage is far from the only thing which the jati system has screwed up. Let us talk about vegetarianism, Indian style, arose in first place and why it persists.

Some readers might remember that I once written a short post about why Indians are more likely to develop metabolic syndrome with its attendant sequelae of Type II diabetes and heart disease. I have also written another post about how this problem is largely self-inflicted. As some might also know, the vast majority of allegedly “educated” Indians like to blame it on “genetic predisposition” because blaming a shortcoming on something which cannot be fixed is a standard Indian way to avoid action (which is also an unfortunate consequence of belief in the jati system). The rabbit hole of problems caused by the jati system is pretty deep, isn’t it?

But wait.. there is another type of bullshit explanation which typical Indians like to use when faced with their self-inflicted shortcomings. To such losers, Indians obsess about vegetarianism because they are “wise” enough to see it is an “ecologically sustainable” lifestyle. Alternatively, they want others to believe that the Indian obsession with vegetarianism is due to their belief in “ahimsa” or interest in “animal welfare”. There are many other bullshit explanations which I have comes across, but we don’t have time to indulge such idiocies. So let us focus on historical records, specifically those written by non-Indians who visited India over the centuries.

And isn’t it sad that we have to rely on the writings of outsiders to understand Indian history because most Indians were unwilling to write down or (more likely) keep transcribing and preserving their own history! Anyway, getting back to historical accounts of India written by outsiders- specifically greco-roman sources around 1st century AD. While I am not going to go into a detailed analysis of each account, there are some overall trends. For example, all accounts agree that Indian kingdoms were large, well populated, quite affluent for their era and involved in extensive trade with the Mediterranean world.

They do talk about a few social classes in Indian society which are not that different from those described in Chanakya’s Arthashastra written a couple of centuries before that time. So far, so good. Now here is the real kicker. Nowhere do they say that Indians ate a diet which was more vegetarian than what contemporary Greeks or Romans ate. And that is not all.. the Arthashastra specifically talks about need for government inspectors and managers for abattoirs in addition to other enterprises such as excise collection, running brothels and building boats. FYI- the two dominant faiths at that time were Buddhism and Hinduism 1.0

The first instance of Vegetarianism being favored in India (at least in the north) can be found in the writings of Chinese monks who traveled to India between 4th and 6th century AD. Faxian in 4th century AD does talk about a general trend towards meat-eating being seen as spiritually unclean while travelling through the early Gupta dynasty era kingdom in North India. It is important to note that the Gupta dynasty was the first major Hindu dynasty in North India since 3rd century BC. But Faxian also describes a peculiar feature of this emergent vegetarianism which would escape most non-indians, including himself. He mentions that people also avoid eating aromatic tubers and roots such as garlic and onions.

In other words, he is talking about a form of Hinduism which borrows very heavily from that other wretched Indian religion aka Jainism. So what is Jainism anyway? Think of it like this.. Jainism is the dogmatic sludge left behind when you remove all the positive and modernistic attributes of Buddhism. Some of you might think that this is an oversimplification and, to some extent, that is true. But there is a very good reason that Buddhism could spread far beyond India and Jainism could not. And yes, I believe that the Hinduism of kings in the Gupta dynasty was very heavily influenced by Jain dogmatism.

But what does any of this have to do with the caste aka jati system. Well.. as it turns out, Faxian and Xuanzang are the first visitors to India to document the existence of untouchable jatis. Not only that, they also document that untouchability was associated with “spiritually unclean” jobs such as processing animals for meat and leather. Now consider that Arthashastra (from an earlier era) treated animal butchery and leather tanning as normal jobs. So how did we get from certain jobs being normal to being considered extra-low status? The conventional answer is that it had something to do with Buddhism. But is that really the case?

How come no other nation or country outside India which adopted Buddhism, or was influenced by it, became vegetarian? Erstwhile Tibet did not, Myanmar did not, Sri Lanka did not, Thailand did not, China did not and Japan did not. Nor did Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia. Buddhism also spread to parts of west-central Asia, but it did not change their dietary habits. So how can we blame it for rise of vegetarianism in India? Clearly something else was at play. Also, based on historical accounts, Indian style vegetarianism arose in North India first and at around same time as beginning of Gupta dynasty. Could it be that their religion was a shitty amalgam of Hinduism 1.0 and Jainism or what we today recognize as Hinduism?

But what does any of this have to do with caste or jati?

A whole fucking lot! For starters, contact with or consumption of meat became associated with lower jatis during this period. Coincidentally, that occurred at about the same time as skilled manual labor became associated with lower jatis. But what became associated with higher jatis? Short answer.. sitting on you ass all day, eating lots of carbohydrates and swindling other people while pretending to pious also known as becoming a bania or brahmin. That is why technological innovation in India pretty much died after the 5th-7th century AD. And that is why, even today, skilled manual labor in India is poorly paid and looked down upon.

But what does any of this have to do with Indians going vegetarian? and why couldn’t it spread past India?

The answer to the first part of that question is as follows: Lacking a unified religion which preached at least nominal equality (like Islam or Christianity), status jockeying among jatis lead the “lower” ones to adopt the habits of the ones “above” them. And guess what.. vegetarianism was one of the major habits of the “upper” jatis. But why couldn’t it spread past the borders of India? In my opinon, the most likely reason for that comes down to two inter-related factors. Buddhism was an equalist religion unlike Hinduism and it never lost patronage outside India. Furthermore the trade network of Jainism-influenced banias and influence of neo-puritan brahmins did not extend beyond India.

Well.. that was a bit longer than I expected. In the next part, I will try to show you how the poor social status of skilled craftsmen and the rigidity of jati system made it almost impossible for India to adopt new technologies and innovations, let alone develop them. I will also try to explain you why the jati system was so resilient In India, even though it was totally incapable of spreading beyond its borders.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on the Recent Trend of Burning Nike-Branded Shoes

September 7, 2018 41 comments

I am sure that by now, most of you must have seen one or more images/ video clips of some “real american” aka pudgy white guys in low-end suburbs with mediocre dead-end jobs burning nike-branded footwear and socks. And yes.. this ludicrous reaction was in reaction to Nike paying Colin Kaepernick to be in one of their latest ad campaign. To rub some more salt in the wounds of easily offended pudgy white guys who are not racist (because they claim to have one black friend) Nike aired ads with Kaepernick during the NFL season opener.

The very short version of the original controversy is as follows: A bit over two years ago, Colin Kaepernick decided to protest the endless spate of police killing unarmed black men in USA by refusing to stand up during the american national anthem played at start of each NFL game- which, curiously, is a fairly recent practice. Apparently this personal protest was enough to get some pudgy white men living in flyover country all up in arms because of “disrespect” to national anthem or some other bullshit reasoning. Whisper.. it was racism.

Personally, I could never understand why any black person would stand up to the american national anthem- given the rather problematic history of USA as a sovereign state towards them. Need I remind you about slavery, Jim Crow laws, mass incarceration and a host of other issues which provide black people a multitude of authentic reasons to not care about USA. Anyway, back to the topic of this post, it seems many of those “real american” idiots thought that posting photos of videos of them burning nike-branded products was a good idea.

But isn’t burning nike shoes by these idiots not eerily reminiscent of their grand parents burning crosses on front lawns of black people? Well it is, but look at the bright side. These idiots are now either too poor or incompetent to buy or make crosses for burning on the lawns of other people. The most they can do now is to burn some old pair of shoes, from the back of their shoe rack, on their own lawn. I say this is real progress, even if it doesn’t seem like that as first sight.

What do you think? Comments?