Archive

Archive for March, 2019

Era of Creativity in American Music, Cinema , Television etc is Over: 1

March 31, 2019 11 comments

Regular readers might be aware of an older post in which I wrote about why the past decade of mainstream movie-making in USA has been full of sequels and reboots rather anything vaguely original. The short version is as follows: the uncritical worship of financialism is behind this and many other (and much larger) systemic problems seen in USA today, from brick-and-mortar retailers dropping like flies to Boeing making some truly atrocious design choices for its 737-Max series. And yes.. ‘late capitalism’ and ‘financialism’ are interchangeable terms- in most contexts. I also wrote another post about how the downstream effects of late capitalism explain the proliferation of ‘superhero’ movies we have seen over the past decade. But how is any of this connected to the title of this post? For starters.. the general lack of creativity we have seen in american music, movies, television, streaming services, video games etc over past ~ 15 years is just another symptom of the same underlying problem.

But before we talk about that problem, let us first spend some time to properly define the issues involved. For example- How does one define creativity and how long did the ‘golden era’ last? Do music sale numbers, box office receipts etc matter and do they affect how we define creativity? So let us begin by discussing all of this and more by using real life examples. That way, I can explain the issues involved in very clear and straightforward terms. Given my greater interest in the visual arts, I will first focus on cinema, television, specialty cable shows and streaming outlets in this part. Here is a good question to start this discussion- Was there ever a ‘golden age’ of american cinema? The answer to that question, while affirmative, is a bit complicated. See.. most people are trained to think that the ‘golden age’ of american cinema was between 1927 and the mid-1950s, when TV started to become the more widespread form of audio-visual entertainment.

I think differently. While cinema was the dominant form of audio-visual entertainment in that era- it was not the ‘golden age’ by any stretch of imagination. The quality and originality of the movies in that era left much to be desired- and that is a huge understatement. While a small part of the blame can be assigned to technology, most of it was a result of how the whole system was run. See.. Hollywood studios were the worst thing that happened to Hollywood- because they were run by losers who cared only about the bottom line and exerting their egos over creative people. That is why movies from that era are so bland, insipid, and unmemorable. Sure.. they made money- but that was largely a consequence to there being no other competing audio-visual media. Also cinema theaters were among the first public places to be air-conditioned. The true golden age of american cinema began after the studio system fell apart in the 1950s and the Hays “moral” code became increasingly irrelevant throughout the 1960s.

The golden age started sometime in the early- to mid- 1960s. And there is something else, which facilitated this era. Today, we think of Hollywood movies as being internationally popular. This was, however, not the case for many decades. Many large European countries had flourishing local film industries for many decades before and, in some case, even after WW2. The Italian, Spanish, German and Russian film industries has tons of very talented directors, producers, actors and the financial means to make and distribute their products. So why did all these other players slowly decline after the 1950s and 1960s. Well.. in the case of film industry in Russia, Germany and other East-European countries, the rise of state communism and promotion of extremely bland control-freaks into position of power resulted in complex regimes of unofficial censorship. People with non-standard worldviews were either silenced or learned to keep quiet.

Let me put it this way.. the majority of memorable and influential movies you can think of simply could not be made in those countries after the early 1960s. Do you think they would have allowed their people to make movies such as Jaws, Star Wars Trilogy, ET, Back to the Future Trilogy, first two Godfather movies, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Blade Runner, The Matrix, the first Jurassic Park, a couple of the original Indiana Jones etc? But why stop there.. what about the first two or three Police Academy movies, all those teen sex comedies from the 80s and 90s, spoofs with Leslie Nielsen or by Mel Brooks and many.. many more transgressive comedies. My point is that the quality of even mainstream Hollywood movies was pretty good (compared to rest of the world) between the late 1960s and early 2000s. But why was Hollywood able to make and market some pretty amazing movies in those three and a half decades- while the rest of the world kept making the same types of movies they had been making since the 1950s?

Some of you might invoke reasons such as american exceptionalism or Hollywood being run by a certain religio-ethic group. The reality is rather different and it all comes down to a combination of two or three factors that were unique to Hollywood. Firstly, after the late-1960s there wasn’t anywhere near the level of direct and indirect creative censorship as compared to other countries. For example- films in former east-Germany and Russia had to pass multiple rounds of scrutiny by people employed specifically to enforce ideological purity. Or take the case of India, where films that did not adhere to the standard Bollywood format had no chance of getting funded and filmed, let alone distributed. In sharp contrast to that, one could make and raise money for all sorts of crazy sounding ideas (some of which later became cultural landmarks) without the fear of being labelled as a dangerous subversive or a perma-failure in Hollywood.

Then there is the effect of 3-4 decades of post-WW2 opportunity for non-rich or non-connected people to get into the film industry. See.. one of the big differences between the american movie industry and the its equivalents in the rest of the world was that the former let people who were not rich or connected into the movie industry- especially behind the camera. Just look up the biographical details of most iconic movie director, producer, special effects guy etc between the late 1960s and early 2000s and you will see that they did not come from a family who was already established in the industry. but why does this matter? Well.. people who rise to their position by coming out the ‘right’ cunt are usually not the most competent or capable candidates for any given job. In my opinion, this was probably the most importance difference between Hollywood and its equivalents in other countries.

The third reason is linked to how success and failure was treated in Hollywood as compared to its foreign counterparts. Which is really a fancy way of saying that frequent failure was considered an unavoidable part of making movies. A few moderate failures or even a couple of nasty ones was not an automatic death sentence or cause of perpetual ostracism in Hollywood- as long as you had a decent record of success or demonstrable competence. To be clear, I am not saying that the american film industry was some great meritocracy full of fourth and fifth chances or kind altruistic people. But it was significantly better than its counterparts in other countries as long as you were white. It was this combination of factors which allowed the extraordinary three and a half decades ‘golden age’ of Hollywood- from 1968 to 2003. But why did it end at 2003? Let me put it this way, truly significant movies made after 2003 are few and widely spaced.

In the next part, I will go into some detail about why 2003 is the best cut-off point for Hollywood making truly amazing and creative movies. As you will see, it has much more to do with new business models based in financialism, managerialism and other bullshit ideas that are also destroying other industrial sectors in USA. You will also see how similar the demise in this sector is to concurrent demise of others such as pharmaceutical research, physical retail outlets and many more. I will also show you what outcomes these financial and managerial types are targeting and how that explains the demise of creativity. You will also see why these losers were in the back-seat during ‘golden age’ but are now firmly in driver’s seat of this dying car.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Mar 30, 2019

March 30, 2019 Leave a comment

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

Amateur Busty Selfies: Mar 30, 2019 – Busty amateur cuties taking selfies.

Side Selfies: Mar 30, 2019 – Amateur cuties taking side selfies.

Doggystyled Amateurs: Mar 30, 2019 – Amateur cuties taking it, doggystyle.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Some More Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 27, 2019 2 comments

In the previous post of this hopefully short series, I wrote about how the release of an executive summary of Mueller’s report has sunk the hopes of many partisan democrat voters. Apparently, many of these retards were fully expecting the report to be some sort of deus-ex-machina which would magically end the Trump presidency and then “everything would just go back to normal”. As I have written in many previous posts, the election of Trump in 2016 is just another symptom of an ongoing slow-motion implosion of neoliberal status quo and imperial pretensions of USA. In other words, removing Trump from office via some sort of legal coup will have zero effect on the constellation of factors which enabled his rise in the first place. But try telling that to the hordes of partisan democrat voters clamoring for Trump’s impeachment for “collusion” with Russia.

Which brings us to an issue that I hinted in the previous post on this topic. Why were so many partisan democrat voters animated by the possibility of Trump being impeached through proof of him “colluding” with Russia? Let me rephrase that question to better explain what I am getting at. Why were they fixated on the “collusion with Russia and Putin” bullshit story when there are tons of far more legitimate reasons for legal prosecution? I mean.. we all know that the orange buffoon is a walking disaster, in addition to having a highly shady past and serious conflict on interest issues between his business empire and office since he was elected in 2016. So why did partisan democrat voters and affluent Reagan democrats (such as MikeCA?) focus on the most ridiculous accusations against this real life version of George Bluth Sr.?

On Sunday, Matt Stoller made an insightful tweet: What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate. Let me now unpack what he was talking about. See.. the peculiar obsession of partisan democrat types with the bullshit “collusion with Russia” narrative, to the exclusion of far better ways to nail the orange buffoon, make sense only if you consider the possibility that it is about validating their belief that HRC was the better candidate and destined to defeat Trump in 2016. Yep.. they desperately want validation for their comic belief that Hillary was meant to win in 2016 and the victory of Trump was due to some mysterious and nefarious actions by “Russia” and “Putin”. But why would they want to believe such tripe, especially given how democrats lost in mid-western states which were considered democrat strongholds during presidential elections for over two decades. Well.. it is both easy and complicated.

As I have written in more than one previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5 and two short series- link 6 and link 7) the democratic party is increasingly led and organised by “credentialed” white liberal professionals who believe in the religion of neoliberalism. But what does this have to do with their obsession about HRC being the “better candidate” who was “destined to win” in 2016. As it turn out.. everything. HRC, you see, is an embodiment of the ultimate neoliberal political candidate. She checked all the right “diversity” boxes, employed advisers and interns from “elite” universities, constantly talked in empty platitudes and gave false hope through carefully chosen words, indulged in constant triangulation on contentious issues, pretended to care about “social justice” issues and generally embodied everything which people in 2019 find repulsive and loathsome about CEOs and other corporate critters.

But it was not always like that and between 1980 and 2009, many in USA (especially middle-class baby boomers and older Gen-Xers) actually believed in neoliberalism. That is why people born before 1970 (like MikeCA?) were far more supportive, if not downright enthusiastic, about HRC’s candidacy in 2016. To be more precise, people above a certain age, income level and living in coastal states saw HRC as their perfect candidate. That is why support for the “Trump colluding with Russia and Putin” bullshit narrative was so high in coastal democrat strongholds but almost absent in parts of the country which have been devastated by decades of neoliberalism. But how does this translate into a singular focus on the bullshit “collusion” narrative while ignoring all the other shitty things Trump has done in the past and is doing right now.

Well.. it comes down to what particular narrative promises and covers up, at the same time. In comparison, blaming the rise of Trump on the effects of neoliberal policies pursued by republicans and democrats since 1980 (or earlier) implicates politicians and presidents from both parties. The “collusion” bullshit narrative allows establishment types to present the victory of Trump in 2016 as an anomaly, one which they can recover from and restore the old status quo. The alternative explanation, namely that Trump’s victory in 2016 as a sign of the old order collapsing, seems to be too frightening and depressing for them to contemplate in public. Blaming Trump’s victory in 2016 on “Russia” and “Putin” allowed establishment democrats to pretend that there is no need for fundamental change while covering up the complete lack of sustained public enthusiasm for their corporate-approved candidates. And they believe they can get away with it.

So why were many coastal partisan democrat voters eager to drink the koolaid of “collusion”? To better answer that question, let talk about the other political figure who is also disliked (if not outright hated) by the biggest lay supporters of the bullshit “collusion” narrative. Does the name, Bernie Sanders, ring a bell? Yes.. there is a very strong overlap between partisan democrats who believe in the bullshit “Trump-Russia-Putin collusion” narrative and those who proudly voted for HRC in the 2016 primaries. And guess which states Bernie had many upset victories during the 2016 primaries? Yep.. many mid-western states which voted for Trump in the general election. Also remember that Bernie won far more votes from people below 40, than those past 50. The thing is, lay supporters of the “collusion” narrative are (in many ways) similar to the last generation who worship a dying religion- which in this case is neoliberalism.

Might write another post in this short series.. but not sure.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 26, 2019 3 comments

I would have preferred to post on topics more consequential than an initial public summary of the now infamous Mueller Report, but it seems (based on the comments section) there is a demand for this sort of writing. And this is fine by me, because posts like the current one are much easier to write than carefully thought ones about issues which actually matter. So, let us first talk with a bit about how it all started. While the exact incident which started this sadly comic endeavor is a matter of some dispute, the timing is much clearer. What we today know as “RussiaGate” started in the summer of 2016, but its origins go back a few months before that to the time when the DNC or somebody associated with that organization paid a certain Christopher Steele to write a damming dossier about Trump. FYI- this part of the origin story is no longer controversial.

The DNC, as some of you might remember, is the same stupid organization who conspired with the corporate media to highlight buffoons such as Trump and Carson (pied-piper candidates) to make it easier for HRC to win in the general election. I wonder how that “strategy” worked out. Anyway, the dumbfuck known as Christopher Steele was hired because he pretended to be a “Russia expert”. As it turns out, Steele was talking out of his behind, because other than a few years of being posted in Russia many years ago- his grasp on his alleged area of “expertise” was non-existent. And you do not have to just believe me on this.. read the dossier. To make a long story short, the entire dossier is full of speculation, hearsay, made-up bullshit and just plain lies. Some readers might wonder.. how can I be so sure that dossier is full of bullshit.

Well.. because if even a fraction of its most salacious accusations were true, at least half the Trump family would have been jailed over a year ago and Trump would have resigned or been impeached by now. But they are not and Trump has neither resigned or been impeached. In case you don’t have time to read that “dossier”, some of the accusations included such gems such as: Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague for “secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers.” and Kremlin had kompromat of Trump defiling a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by “employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show.” It turns out that these accusations were either totally made up or were wild exaggerations.

Michael Cohen was found guilty of perjury, lying to banks, tax evasion and violating campaign finance laws but not of going to Prague or conspiring with any “Russians” to influence the 2016 election. Did I mention that the Mueller investigation did not file any indictment against Carter Page? And there is no proof of the “Kremlin” or “Putin” having sexual Kompromat on Trump. So.. the whole dossier was largely full of bullshit. At this stage, I expect MikeCA to tell me how a few of the accusations in that dossier could be interpreted as correct. Well.. it does not take a genius with expertise in “Russia” to do a few internet searches that point to Trump’s interest in building or licensing his brand name to a few luxury condo complexes in Moscow. Trump being interested in making a fast buck and sticking his name onto architectural abominations is as predictable as dogs sniffing the behinds of other dogs. In any case, he did not expect to win in 2016.

I am not going to bore you with all the details of how things went down after that initial dossier was shopped around various news outlets and senators (including John McCain) once it became obvious that Trump was going to win the republican party nomination. Matt Taibbi has written a far more detailed account of how this bullshit drama unfolded. Aaron Maté has a pretty good analysis of the how the whole “collusion” theory has fallen apart. Branko Marcetic has a good piece about how “RussiaGate” helped rehabilitate previously discredited necons and the national “security apparatus. It is also telling that some corporate media outlets, like Vanity Fair,who were cheerleading the Mueller investigation as late as last week are now starting to publish posts which are far more somber about the Mueller Report and the future of similar investigations.

Heck.. even NYT is now starting to publish pieces which talk about the long-term deleterious effects of the media’s role in hyping RussiaGate on the national psyche. And before I forget, here is a piece by Michael Tracey about how democratic politicians and sympathetic media spent all their energies fanning this fake scandal when they could have put that same effort in uncovering the numerous real scandals of the Trump administration. I am sure that readers will see many more pieces such as these in coming weeks, as corporate media outlets try to back-paddle from their previous positions on Russiagate. FYI- Michael Tracey, Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and a handful of others were among the very few who consistently maintained that RussiaGate was a fake scandal which would not result in Trump being impeached or resigning.

They also correctly predicted that RussiaGate would end up vindicating Trump’s rants about how the “Deep State” was trying to screw him over- in addition to making it far harder for subsequent real charges of malfeasance to stick to him. And that is where things seem to be headed. It is very likely that all those investigations of Trump and his family by SDNY and a few other DAs sympathetic to democratic establishment will be seen as continuation of the ‘witchunt’ against Trump. WSo.. what has this investigation achieved thus far, apart from making Trump seem sympathetic and justified in his paranoia against establishment types?

Well.. for starters, it has done wonders for the bottom line of cynical cable news networks such as MSNBC and CNN. Con artists such as Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon (and many others) owe a good art of their recent viewership numbers to peddling this scam. Many NeoCons such as David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot and many others who were relegated to dustbin of history after the Iraq war turned out to be a disaster have now been rehabilitated. Incompetent sociopaths such Comey, Hayden, Clapper and Brennan have also been rehabilitated as senior public intellectuals. And it gets worse. Gullible partisan democratic voters have been swindled out of billions by montebanks who sold them fiction masquerading as investigative journalism. Late-night “comics” cannot make “jokes” which do not involve fantasies of Trump getting arrested or impeached.

In summary, the Mueller investigation and the artificial hype surrounding it have done a lot of long-term damage to the credibility of american journalism.. well.. whatever was left of it after 2003. In the next post on this topic, I will show you how establishment democrats peddled and promoted RussiaGate to avoid any self-analysis after their anointed candidate was defeated by that orange buffoon in 2016. As somebody on Twitter quipped- What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Mar 25, 2019

March 25, 2019 Leave a comment

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

Amateur Soapy Cuties: Mar 7, 2019 – Soapy amateur cuties in the shower.

Busty Selfies: Mar 16, 2019 – Busty amateurs taking selfies.

More Busty Selfies: Mar 25, 2019 – More busty amateur cuties taking selfies.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

End of Mueller Investigation and ‘Trump-Russia-Putin Collusion’ Bullshit

March 23, 2019 10 comments

Unless you have been living under a rock since Friday morning, you must have read or heard that the Special Counsel investigation aka Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s alleged collusion with ‘Russia’ and ‘Putin’ during the 2016 presidential election is finally over. While an executive summary of its findings should be available sometime this weekend, it is noteworthy that there are no new open or “sealed” indictments. Which is a fancy way of saying that the Special Counsel has not been able to indict one single person from Trump’s presidential campaign, including the orange buffoon himself, of collusion with “Russia” or “Putin”. Every single person who has been indicted by Mueller’s team has landed in that position because of criminal actions unrelated to 2016 campaign or committing perjury. In other words, the establishment democrat/s desire to see Trump impeached has taken a massive and unrecoverable hit.

Even worse, they have finally validated Trump’s defense of this investigation being unfair and a ‘witch hunt’. Way to go, dumbfucks! Of course, there are still tons of dead-enders who keep babbling about “SDNY” and other similar bullshit. But let us get real.. the majority of people will now no longer believe in the results of any future investigation of Trump. In fact, just over 50% of Americans were seeing it that way before the Mueller investigation wrapped up– without a single indictment for collusion with Russia. It is now increasingly likely that Trump will use the report as an important plank of this campaign for re-election in 2020. And you know what.. if establishment democrats are stupid enough to rig their primaries (like they did in 2016) for a corporate-anointed loser such as Biden, Beto or Kamala- he might actually win in 2020.

Matt Taibbi has written an excellent post about how Russiagate is contemporary equivalent of the WMD fiasco of 2002. In it, he goes into considerable detail as to how a bullshit “dossier” written by a greedy British hack and paid for by the DNC started one of the most darkly comic chapters in recent american history. I would strongly suggest you read his entire post- even if it is a bit on the longer side. While the circumstances surrounding the start of this investigation, which began around June 2016, are almost too comical to be real- it keeps getting better and more absurd. Taibbi also skewers all the national news outlets, “respectable” journalists, cable news anchors, talking heads, Twitterati and “celebrities” who got into the act- if only to make a quick buck. Once again, I strongly suggest you read his post- preferably more than once.

Moving on.. the obsession of establishment democrats with ‘Trump-Russia-Putin’ is now going to get much harder to justify. But don’t worry, I am sure that they will find a few new ways to fuck themselves by focusing on something which the majority see as hacky partisan bullshit with no connection to the worsening quality of their lives. Between this pile of bullshit, renewed calls for “gun control” and mouthing empty platitudes which deceive nobody in 2019, they will find a way to lose to that orange buffoon in 2020. And let us be honest about something.. establishment democrats would rather lose to Trump than defy their corporate masters and campaign on popular policies such as universal single-payer healthcare, student loan forgiveness, higher minimum wage etc which might actually get the majority of voters to elect them.

I might write another post about this topic soon, preferably after reading the executive summary of the Mueller Report. Till then, have a look at the hysterically comic bullshit which was being passed off as real journalism by cable news networks- narrated by the always funny Jimmy Dore.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 1

March 21, 2019 34 comments

Regular readers know that I have written many posts about the intersection of racism and dating. In fact, that is why entire series such as Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage, Escorts are a better deal than ‘real’ women and How to Use Escorts exist in the first place. But what does any of this have to do with the intersection between racism and feminism? Well.. for starters, systemic racism by women in western countries is the main reason behind their vastly differing rates of having “unpaid” sex with men of various racial groups. However, as you will soon see, it goes much further than that and in ways you probably never appreciated. Let me start by asking you a simple question: Why is Feminism as we understand it today, in all its forms, largely restricted to Anglo, and perhaps Scandinavian, countries. Odd, isn’t it?

At this point, some of you might try to counter my suggestion that feminism is largely an Anglo and Scandinavian phenomena by pointing out that almost every single country in the world seems to, nowadays, have equal legal rights for men and women. And I do not disagree that the majority of countries today do have laws and, in many cases socio-economic systems, which do a good or at least decent job of treating men and women equally. Notice something peculiar about the wording of previous two sentences? See.. ensuring legal equality of the sexes is not the same as feminism- which is really about white women gaining primacy over all other men. While feminism did come into existence, as a movement, to ostensibly ensure that women were legally equal to men- that was never its initial nor ultimate goal.

Instead, feminism in Anglo countries started a project to gain primacy for rich and bourgeoisie white women. Don’t believe me? Did you know that luminaries of the suffragette movement were super racist white women? Also this fact is really well known in addition to causing a host of practical problems in the past. But it gets worse, if you can believe it. White suffragettes were into stuff like eugenics and forced sterilization, seriously racist views about black and asian men and a whole lot of other stuff which would get them labelled as a hate group today. All of this does however bring us to the next logical question: Why were Anglo, and to a lesser extent Scandinavian countries, such hotspots for Feminism? Why were other European countries full of equally racist losers, such as Germany or Italy, never that much into Feminism?

To better understand what I am going to talk about, let me ask you another seemingly unrelated question. How many male admirers will post comments on Instagram shots of an attractive woman in a thong bikini if she was from Germany, Spain, Brazil versus if she was from USA or UK? In my experience, there are between 10-40 times more positive comments from guys if the women in question is from Anglo countries than if she was from non-Anglo countries. And this has nothing to do with the degree of Instagram use in those countries. You can see the same pattern on social media networks more popular in non-Anglo countries than their Anglo counterparts. Leaving worshipful comments in response to photos of attractive women is just not that common outside the Anglosphere. But why is that so? What is going on?

Here is something else to think about.. Say a woman accuses some guy of date rape (a he said, she said situation). What percentage of men not related to the accuser will unconditionally believe her story in countries such as Germany, France and Italy versus USA? Why is it far higher in USA than in non-Anglo countries? What makes men in Anglo countries far more willing and eager to go along with any bullshit a white woman will say as compared to their counterparts in other (still) white-majority countries? Note that women in developed non-Anglo countries are no more (often less) likely to be suffer violence than their counterparts in Anglo countries. Nor are women in those countries likely to be poorer, unhealthier or worse off than their counterparts in Anglo countries- in fact, the converse is more likely. Once again, what is going on?

Then there is the issue of sex, both paid and “unpaid”. Why are white women in non-Anglo countries more likely to have a sexual relationship (than Anglo women) with a non-white guy, given the opportunity? Why are escorts born outside USA, or are early second-generation types from non-Anglo countries widely recognized as far more reasonable and generally way more fun than their Anglo counterparts? Why do people like RooshV and Matt Forney keep saying that women outside North America are far better than those within it? Why are the laws surrounding prostitution in some Anglo countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada more reasonable than those in USA or UK? And what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post?

In case you have not noticed the trend, let me state it explicitly. Male support for feminism in western countries correlates quite well with the size of empire it has or had and whether it was a society based in racial-apartheid (USA). That is why Feminism always has, and had, a far bigger presence in countries such as UK and USA than others such as Italy, Germany or even France. This is also why Feminism, SJW-ism and other white women-first movements are bigger in USA and UK than ex-colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand- who seem to largely copy whatever occurs in USA. Now you know why otherwise rich western countries such as Netherlands and Switzerland have far fewer vocal feminist activists or public support for such ideas than countries like UK and USA. But why would the size of ex-colonial empires or erstwhile global influence create fertile grounds for Feminism?

It all comes down to the myths which people, who get lucky, have to invent to justify their newly found fortune. In the case of UK, its success at gaining overseas territory during the 19th century was largely due to factors beyond its own control. Whether it was the slow decline of French imperial ambitions after Napoleon or being present at the time of large-scale internal civil strife in countries such as India and China- they just got lucky. But human being do not like to admit (especially to themselves) that they owe their fortunes to luck. Hence the need to believe that they were, as a race, somehow inherently superior. You can see where this is going.. Also, the empire was mostly staffed by young men who lived in lands with very few white women. That is why inter-racial marriage was pretty common in many older colonies until the early 1800s. However this changed once the British empire started consolidating.

Placing white women on a pedestal makes sense only if it somehow translates into maintaining racial purity. Colonialism lead to the need for maintaining racial hierarchy and hence purity which lead to pedestalling white women which then lead to Feminism. And that is why a lot of early Feminism were rich racist white women who came from either the ruling or bourgeoisie class. This is also why most pre-1960s Feminists had an obsession with maintaining racial purity and the status quo. Let us now turn to USA aka the country built on theft of land from its original inhabitants, their subsequent genocide and wealth created through race-based slavery. While the USA was not, technically, an extra-territorial empire until the 1890s- this had much to do with it being not necessary. Westward expansion until early 20th century was just way easier.

As far as Scandinavian countries are concerned, things took a different route. While they gave up the idea of competing with UK, France and Spain for overseas colonies quite early, they benefited greatly from supporting colonialism through involvement in commercial activity in colonies and the process of colonization. So ya.. that is why systemic racism and Feminism have, historically, been joined at the hip. Feminism can only thrive in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire of maintaining racial purity. There is, of course, more to this story than Feminism being the end-product of delusions about intrinsic racial superiority. Will explain more in an upcoming post.

What do you think? Comments?

Critical Analysis of Cinematic Continuity Issues in ‘Leaving Neverland’

March 19, 2019 3 comments

Given the amount of time I spend browsing some of more obscure parts of the Internet, it is not surprising for me to run into some rather unconventional stuff and ideas. One of many YouTube channels which I came across many years ago is known as Collative Learning and is run by Rob Ager. While he is best described as a cinema critic, a lot of his work is rather different from the other fake ‘quirky’ YouTubers who run channels that also critique cinema and TV shows. Let me put it this way, his takes on various movies and shows are very meta and quite unconventional. To be clear, you do not have to agree, let alone believe, everything he says- but some do actually make sense. Anyway, let us now get to the topic at hand.

Some of you might remember that I recently wrote a post about posthumous accusations of child abuse against Michael Jackson made in a HBO documentary called ‘Leaving Neverland’. The main point I made in that post was that given MJs rather screwed up upbringing, it is not unlikely that he had less-than-appropriate relationships with young boys. In it, I also pointed out that it was almost impossible for such interactions to occur without cooperation from parents of both boys (now adults) who accused him of sexual abuse a decade after his death. Which is a nice way of saying the parents of those boys did not care too much about what was occurring between MJ and their children as long as money and gifts kept flowing.

Rob Ager has a different take on that documentary. In his opinion, the continuity errors and when they occur suggest that seemingly single-take interviews were done over a period of many days and perhaps weeks or months. While it is not unusual to splice good footage from multiple shots over a period of days, Rob points out that it has been done to give the superficial appearance of a single extended take. To put it another way, he is trying to say that the final shots used in that documentary were likely the result of multiple takes done to get the best reaction aka acting from both the main interviewees. He also points out evidence which suggests that certain elements of their stories were almost certainly shot a few weeks or months later, but done in a manner to give the outward appearance of being part of the original series of interviews.

I have always found it odd that the two interviewees in the HBO documentary testified in favor of MJ as late as 2005 (when they were adults) but changed their story completely almost a decade after his death. Some of you also know that at least one of them had unsuccessfully sued the estate of MJ a couple of years ago, but only after he fell into personal financial trouble. It is hard to shake the suspicion that their accusations and this documentary was about making money, especially in the “MeToo” era, rather than seeking justice. Have a look..

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Possible Medium-Term Fallout of NZ Mass Shooting

March 17, 2019 19 comments

By now, you must have all heard about the latest live-streamed mass shooting, which occurred in New Zealand (surprisingly) rather than USA, and resulted in the death of 50 people. Apparently, the main perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, was Australian by birth and citizenship. So far, very little is known about the role of other 2 or 3 other people arrested for helping him. While the precise set of reasons which made this white idiot go on a shooting spree are less than clear, based on his manifesto (link 1, link 2– FYI, link 2 is a supremacist site) it has something to do with the “clash of civilizations”, inciting race war and low white birth-rates or something along those lines. However there are tens of thousands (if not more) of white idiots who harbor almost identical beliefs, and yet the vast majority live out the remainder of their pathetic lives or die of opioid overdose or alcoholism. The first question is- what made this particular idiot act out?

The next question concerns how normal, or abnormal, his actions were. As I wrote in a previous post, there is no real difference between the actions of somebody like this and any soldier who willingly participated in the failed occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Never forger that killing 50 Muslim civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan as a soldier would likely have no adverse consequences. Heck.. he might even have received a decoration or two for doing that exact same thing. Also, do you remember all those famous neocon and neoliberal “intellectuals” with cushy sinecures who have repeatedly expressed very similar sentiments about Muslims. In case you don’t, have a look at the writings of people like Bill Kristol, Max Boot, David Frum etc between 2002 and 2007. Even more blatant examples can be found in writings of scam artists such as Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin and Eric Weinstein. An interesting collection of people..

Let us focus on the possible short- and medium- term effects of this mass shooting. For starters, this one is very different from the majority of mass shootings which occur in USA and are secular. While there have been a few religion-inspired mass shootings in USA, such as Orlando nightclub shooting as well as San Bernardino attack, they are uncommon. Instead, the most common type of mass shooting in USA involves a young or middle-aged guy who decided to go on a mass shooting because he was unhappy with his life, one or more woman, his employer or society. While some shooters can be older like that Las Vegas shooter, the majority of mass shooters in USA do so for very secular reasons. But why does this matter? Well.. it is relevant to medium-term effects. But before we go there, let us quickly go over the short-term effects.

The most important and consequential short-term effect of this mass shooting involves how it has exposed the cluelessness and sheer incompetence of New Zealand officialdom. Their hilariously pathetic attempts to suppress the manifesto and video clip of that massacre have, if anything, given them far more visibility and popularity. Even worse, their heavy-handed attempts to censor searches for it, via Google, have all but ensured that we will see an endless variety of recut and dubbed versions of it in the near future. The smart thing would have been to let them become viral for a week or two before something else displaces them from the headlines. But the kiwi idiots, in their infinite stupidity, have ensured that this the loser’s manifesto and video clip will live on for far longer than it otherwise would have. Also, this comes almost two years into increasing public concern over monopoly issues in the tech sector. Smart move, boneheads!

Before we go the likely medium term (6 months to 5 years) effects of this incident, let me tell me why I am not going to speculate on the long-term effects of this one. Firstly, predicting the future with decent accuracy beyond ten years is hard and can be done reliably only for large-scale trends. For example, there is a very high probability that USA and the “west” will be significantly less powerful and consequential (than they are now) in two decades. It is also likely that USA, as a nation, will slowly come part during that time-span. Similarly the racial composition of working age population in the previously “white” west will change irreversibly with major down-stream effects. And there is nothing which can change that dynamic. This mass shooting is, however, too small an event (at least right now) to have any significant long-term effects and will be seen as no different from the one perpetrated by Anders Breivik in 2011.

The medium-term effects are, however, interesting as well as reasonably predictable. So without further delay, here are some of them- in no particular order.

1] Relatives of the main shooter and his accomplices are going to be walking targets for years to come, perhaps for the rest of their lives. The MSM punditry seem to have either missed this one completely or believe that it cannot happen. Remember the part where I said that this shooting is different because the motivations were based in religion and race, rather than secular stuff? The thing is.. most of those Muslim victims came from cultures with a strong tradition of seeking vengeance on those who have wronged them and their relatives. Add to this the willingness of a certain middle-eastern country to lavish money on organisations which promote the Wahhabi version of Islam. Not to mention another country which is certain that, it and not the first one, is the true defender of Islam. And then are other radicalized organisations who might find relatives of the perpetrators to be deserving targets. Ya.. shit could get interesting very quickly.

2] Readers might have also noticed that lots of “gun control” advocates in USA are trying to use the events in NZ and the subsequent and stupid local government response to it to press for “gun control” legislation in USA. In my opinion, this attempt will backfire badly for a number of reasons that are beyond the scope of this post. The very short version is as follows: the democratic party in USA (like all neoliberal parties in rapidly declining west) has no desire to effect the type of populist change which could actually get it tons of new voters. This is why they lost to Trump in 2016 and Bush43 in 2000 and 2004. So how do they retain their core partisan and idiot voters? Well.. by campaigning on cultural wedge issues which will get them enough core voters to be relevant, even if they do not win. Expect them, and their urban professional supporters, to double and triple down on futile attempts at gun control which will likely cost them the 2020 election.

3] The NZ mass shooting will intensify the ongoing conflict between internet monopolies and alt-right idiots in USA. While I have no love for alt-right types, I would like to see internet monopolies broken up and made irrelevant in more than one way. The way I see it, internet monopolies have the potential to be far bigger long-term threats to everyone than a few losers who carry tikki torches and home-made shields with norse-inspired emblems. It is very likely that we will see an intensification of the ongoing conflict between these two despicable groups. Expect more decentralized options to centralized services arise and gain useful. Also expect more boneheaded and overzealous attempts at platform censorship and deplatforming by tech monopolies with the potential for violent blowback from alt-right types.

What do you think? Comments?

737-Max Fiasco is about Late Capitalism and Terminal Decline of USA

March 13, 2019 30 comments

By now, almost everyone of you must have heard about the 737-Max fiasco. In case you have not, let me quickly summarize it. About six months, a 737-Max 8 airliner with barely 800 flight hours crashed in Indonesia resulting in the death of all 189 people on board. Even at that time, this incident raised many eyebrows- largely because it was barely 3 months old in addition to being the most recent version of the long-running 737 family of airliners. The crash was subsequently determined to be the result of undesired behavior by a new automated trim control system. At that time, Boeing promised current and future customers of its new ‘737 Max’ series that the trim control problem would be fixed by a software update or something along those lines.

And then about three days ago, another 737-Max 8 went down under similar circumstances killing all 157 people on board. While we do not, yet, have the final report on this accident- it appears that this particular crash (too) occurred within a few minutes of takeoff and had something to do with the automated trim control behaving in an anomalous manner. Which brings us to the first question regarding this pair of airplane crashes- How does a large corporation such as Boeing with decades of experience building tens of thousands of airliners manage to build an updated version of the venerable 737 with bad flight characteristics during takeoffs and landings. In case you are wondering, dozens of incident reports from all around the world, including USA, filed during the past year about this version of the 737 have reported similar problems.

But what does any of this have to with late capitalism and the terminal decline of USA? A couple of poorly designed airliners falling out of the sky and killing over 300 people, while tragic, is by no means a harbinger of national collapse.. right? Well.. let me put it this way- I see it as another sign of the ongoing terminal death spiral of USA, at least of the form it exists in today. To better understand what I am talking about, let me ask you another question- At what point did people in USSR stop becoming optimistic about their future? The answer to that question is.. sometime in the mid-1970s. But why then and not during WW2 or the early 1950s when material conditions were far worse? Well.. because people will persevere in face of adversity if there is a realistic hope for a better future, but they won’t care about a system if there is no hope for one.

But how did this societal malaise manifest itself? Well.. in many ways and a multitude of areas. The one common thread which ran through most of them was a slow but steady degradation of pre-existing capabilities. Apparently, the quality of things built during that era, from apartments, cars, consumer appliances to unmanned space-probes and commercial aircraft, well.. basically anything not absolutely essential to survival of the existing government, went down. I have long held the view that post-2008 USA is increasingly like ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe after the early 1970s. Think about it- youth who do not see a brighter future for themselves.. check. An out-of-touch elite who want to maintain the status quo.. check. Widespread despair and slow decrease in life-expectancy.. check. Rampant alcoholism or drug addiction.. check. Increasing crapification of consumer products and services.. check.

I could go on, but you get the point. But how does the 737 Max fiasco fit in this picture? Let me explain.. but before we do that, let me give you a quick historical primer about the 737 family of aircraft so you can better appreciate what I am talking about. The project to develop the 737 was started by Boeing in the mid-1960s because they wanted a bigger 727 that could fly a bit further. At that time, Boeing had already making the 707 for longer routes, 720 for medium distance routes and the 727 for short hauls. In case you are wondering, all three of these aircraft were powered by turbojet or first-gen turbofan engines. And yes.. this fact is relevant. The 737 was originally designed to use first-gen and therefore low-pass turbofans. While these engines were less efficient and more fuel hungry than later high-pass turbofans, they were also far slimmer.

Some of you might wonder as to what this fact has to do with the current 737 Max fiasco. The answer is.. a whole fucking lot! Because Boeing wanted an airliner that was simple to operate, easy to repair and with a high dispatch reliability, they made some design choices. Specifically, they built an aircraft which sat pretty close to the ground- something that was possible because of the slim first-gen turbofan engines (-100 and -200). And it worked very well. After a somewhat slow start, sales picked up and it became pretty popular. But then Airbus came on the scene and its 310 series started providing competition for the 737. Boeing responded by developing the 737-Classic (-300, -400 and -500). This is also where they first faced the problem of how to install a fat high-bypass turbofan in a low-slung design meant for older and slimmer turbofans. They did it with some ingenious shaping and positioning for the new engine and it worked.

The next major update, aptly named the 737 Next Gen (-600, -700, -800 and -900) proved to be their most successful. Its engines were a bit less fatter than the Classic series, while being more efficient. It, however, proved to be the furthest they could safely stretch their original design. For a decade or so, this design was in a happy sales equilibrium with members of the Airbus 320 family. And then Airbus started developing the Airbus 320neo. It offered considerable fuel savings, lower noise levels and a longer range than its predecessors. But most importantly Airbus was able to develop it without spending a ton of money because the original design it was based on (the 320) could easily accommodate even wider turbofan engines. Remember that the 320 was developed after 2nd gen turbofan engines were developed.

Anyway, this forced Boeing to update the 737- with even wider and more efficient turbofan engines. The thing is, they had two choices. They could either use their institutional knowledge and ability to build a new design from scratch or they could just try to somehow shoehorn the new big-ass engine into the 737 design template. They chose the latter option for reasons that had everything to do with financial considerations. Through a combination of “clever” placement of the extra-fat engines, a slight height increase in their landing gear and a bit of wing redesign- they were able to develop a design that checked all the boxes their bean-counters cared about. However physical reality is a bitch and the new design had a less-than-optimal weight distribution and flying characteristics. Loathe to abandon something that almost worked, they decided to use a software solution to improve its flight characteristics.

Enter the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). Without going into too much detail, this system was not well implemented and caused problems when the aircraft changed altitude rapidly such as during takeoff and landing. Furthermore, the issues with this system were not consistently reproducible- which is a fancy way of saying that the system misbehaved in an unpredictable manner. Also, the new cockpit interface which came with his update was different from the one in its predecessors and it took multiple steps to switch it off and the MCAS was automatically turned back on after each flight. Did I mention that the new manuals and checklists did a poor job of explaining the updated interface and this system.

In summary, Boeing built upon an old design template to save money resulting in problematic flying characteristics. To make matters worse, the hardware and software components of their auto-trim system (meant to fix poor flying characteristic) was inadequately engineered and poorly implemented. The user interface through which this system could be overridden was unfamiliar, poorly designed and even more poorly documented. On the bright side, a bunch of senior Boeing executives made a shitload of money and performance bonuses. And this is what happens when you run a company based on the whims and series of MBAs, bean-counters and other ivy-league scam artist as opposed to listening to and respecting the judgment of your engineers.

What do you think? Comments?

Persecution of Anti-Vaxxers Will Backfire on Believers in Scientism: 1

March 10, 2019 9 comments

Over the past few months, we have seen a barrage of attention-seeking types, supported by the dying MSM, who claim to defend “science” from anti-vaxxers (link 1, link 2 and link 3). However, as anybody who has read enough about the history of modern medicine knows, there have been anti-vaxxers, of some type, as long as there have been vaccines. Which is a nice way of saying that all the effort expended by all those pro-vaccination supporters is about self-aggrandizement, rather than anything altruistic. See.. the thing is, the first major anti-vaxxer movements petered over a century ago once it became very obvious that specific infectious diseases were caused by specific microorganisms and exposure to an attenuated form of the pathogen or its main toxin would confer functional immunity to those diseases.

In other words, the modern anti-vaxxer movements are NOT populated by rubes who reject the idea that pathogens cause infectious diseases or deny that vaccines elicit an immunological response. In fact, I wrote a couple of posts on this topic in the past where I pointed out that the modern anti-vaxxer movements are an inevitable consequence of profit-driven medicine and that the effects of late-capitalism on the medical system have made it increasingly untrustworthy. Sharp eyed readers might have noticed that I used the plural rather than singular form of ‘movement’ in my previous sentences. As you will see, there is a good reason behind using the plural form and it is very relevant to the rest of this series- specifically the part about how persecution of anti-vaxxers will backfire on believers in scientism.

Let us now talk about the real factors at play in this conflict, and let us be honest about how things are in real-life as opposed to how they should or ought to be.

1] Public trust in the medical profession, especially in USA, has been dropping at an increasing rate over past two decades. Regardless of what you want to believe, it is hard to escape the fact that public faith in “credentialed experts” of all types has been steadily going down over past 2-3 decades. And let us be honest about something else- this loss of faith is grounded in very solid reasons. It takes too much effort to keep believing in priests.. I mean”credentialed experts”.. who have made repeatedly been shown to wrong, greedy and incompetent. By now, almost every person in USA has had personal experience or knows somebody directly who has suffered due to dogma, greed or sheer incompetence of physicians who behave as if they are incapable of making mistakes. And the effect of such behavior and attitudes on their overall credibility is cumulative.

How many of you would willingly place your trust in people who have repeatedly displayed their ability to believe and promote bullshit, derive their livelihood via cartelisation of their profession and are generally incapable of accepting their past mistakes? Why, then, would you expect people with skin in the game aka parents to blindly trust any guidelines or recommendations these “credentialed experts” with no skin in the game come up with? And let us be honest about something else.. “revised guidelines and recommendations” during the past 20 years have almost exclusively been used to sell increasingly more expensive drugs and other medical services without a corresponding increase in life-expectancy. And this leads us to the second issue- namely, the risk-benefit ratios for each vaccine.

2] Too many losers.. I mean supporters of scientism.. believe (or pretend to) that all vaccines are wonder drugs with almost no side-effects and almost universal efficacy. The reality, as usual, is more complicated. While there are vaccines with almost 100% efficacy and almost non-existent serious adverse effects (Diphtheria and Tetanus toxoids, oral and injected polio vaccines, Mumps and Rubella component of MMR, Hepatitis A and B vaccines etc), not all vaccines with almost universal efficacy are free of a small risk of serious side effects. Two of most well-known vaccines (Vaccinia-based smallpox vaccine and Rabies Vaccines- even the latest ones) are known to cause serious side-effects in about 1 in 1000 to 10,000 recipients. That is why we stopped vaccinating the general population against Smallpox a few years after it was eradicated in the late-1970s and also why the Rabies vaccine is usually used for post-exposure treatment in humans.

Now you know why only veterinarians, bat cave explorers, people who travel in wild areas of poor countries and people who work with the rabies virus are vaccinated pre-exposure, and everybody else is vaccinated immediately after exposure. This is also why the yellow fever vaccine, which is also very effective, is used so sparingly outside countries and localities where that disease is endemic. Long story short- even extremely effective vaccines can have adverse effects at unacceptable rates in areas where the disease is not prevalent. For example- vaccinating everybody in USA with the smallpox, rabies and yellow fever vaccines would cause more deaths and illness than those diseases cause under current long-established guidelines.

3] Not all vaccines are highly effective. Yearly influenza shots are a very good example of vaccines whose real-life efficacy rarely exceeds 50%. In most years, their efficacy is closer to 30%, and it often dips as low as 10-20%. Did I mention that influenza stains at the start of an epidemic are often not the same as those near the end? Pretending that yearly influenza vaccination protects people from that disease at a higher rate than wearing a magical charm or talisman is scientifically disingenuous. Maybe, someday we will have an efficacious vaccine for all strains of influenza that can infect humans or attenuate the disease. However, as things stand today we don’t have one and it is stupid to keep pretending otherwise.

And then there is the issue of established and efficacious vaccines, which nonetheless, could use some improvement. For example- the cellular pertussis vaccine has pretty good efficacy (85-90%) but is known to make a few children ill enough to require hospital care. The acellular version, while displaying far fewer serious side effects, is a bit less efficacious (60-80%). Clearly, we should try to develop a better pertussis component in the DPT vaccine with more efficacy and fewer side effects. Also, a better system for identifying kids who will react poorly to the cellular version of that vaccine is required. The Measles component of the MMR vaccine provides a pretty high degree of complete protection (over 85%), however about 1 of 10 vaccinated children can still develop a very mild form of the illness if exposed to that virus.

Let us, therefore, not pretend that the Measles competent of MMR is close to 100% effective. The same is true for Chickenpox vaccine- which provides total protection for about 80%, while providing protection against moderate to severe disease to the other 19-20%. Note that I am using numbers and percentages based on standard multiple-dose vaccinations schedules. In the next part, I will go into the efficacy and effectiveness of these and other vaccines from a public health standpoint. As you will see in that part, some vaccines are far more consequential from the public health standpoint than others- which is a fancy way of saying that some are more important than others.

What do you think? Comments?

How is R. Kelly’s Behavior Worse than His White Showbiz Counterparts?

March 6, 2019 12 comments

By now, I am sure that most of you have seen that recent interview of R. Kelly by Gayle King. While it was.. well.. interesting, the parts I saw and the public reaction to it on social media got me thinking about something else. Why are all these “male feminists”, SJWs and other public virtue display peddlers focused on the ongoing R. Kelly saga, but ignoring many similar and often worse cases perpetrated by white showbiz celebrities? Why are all of these self-anointed arbiters of justice getting themselves into a tizzy over what pretty much anybody with more than half-a-brain has known for over a decade and why are they so interested in skipping due process.

But before we go there, let be clear about a few things. Firstly, unlike Bill Cosby who drugged and raped dozens of women over decades, there is still no definitive evidence (acceptable in a court of law) that R. Kelly did anything similar. Sure.. there are a couple of women who claim that he forced them into having sex. However the events in question took place over a decade or two ago and, in the absence of physical evidence, it really comes down to which side you want to believe. While accepting the accusers’s version of the story without corroborating evidence might be acceptable to SJWs and other virtue peddlers, we as a society no longer do so for reasons which are all too apparent once you read about the history of show trials for witchcraft and heresy.

Secondly, unlike Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky- R. Kelly was not into prepubsecent or barely pubsecent children. In other words, he often preferred girls who were under 18, but definitely post-pubescent. But why does this matter? well.. for starters, while those girls were not legally adults, they were no longer children- biologically and mentally. And this is relevant because there are many example of white male showbiz types who have displayed almost identical behavior and not suffered any negative consequences (legal or otherwise) to date. In fact, the very behavior for which SJWs are trying to lynch R. Kelly have long been seen as harmless eccentricities if the perpetrator was a famous white guy in showbiz. Here are some well-known examples..

Remember Jerry Seinfeld? He used to a date a 17-year old when almost 40. So why have we not heard calls by SJWs to ban ‘Seinfeld’ reruns from cable TV or online streaming platforms? Or what about Paul Walker of ‘Fast and Furious’ movie franchise fame? He dated more than one 16-year-old girl when he was in his 30s. How come all those SJWs are not interested in deplatforming the movies of a white actor with a predilection for under-18 girls? What about Wilmer Valderrama from ‘That 70s show’? Did you know he dated mandy moore, ashley simpson, lindsay lohan and demi lovato when they were under-18 and he was more than a few years older than them? Heard any SJWs calling for cancellation of ‘That 70s Show reruns?

Did you know that Sonny Bono was dating Cher when she was 16 and he was at least a decade older than her? Elvis Presley first met Priscilla Beaulieu when she was 14 and he was 25. What about a 25-year-old Joe Madden dating Hillary Duff when she was 16? Milo Ventimiglia was 29 when he dated a 17-year-old Hayden Panettiere. Don’t forget that Don Johnson dated a 16-year-old Melanie Griffith, when he was in his 20s. David Bowie had a sexual relationship with at least one 13 or 14-year-old in the 1970s. Did I mention that members of pretty much every single rock band of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s have had sex with under-18 groupies?

Then there are people like Woody Allen who slept with his underage adopted daughter as well as at least one more 16-year-old girl when he was in his 40s or older. Steven Tyler of Aerosmith famously dated a 16-year-old when he was 25. Look.. the point I am trying to make is that prosecuting a famous black guy with a preference for post-pubsecent, but under-18, girls while ignoring or even celebrating that same behavior in white (or non-black) guys is both inconsistent as well as racist. Let us not pretend that whatever happens between R. Kelly and those girls is somehow different from some white male celebrity and an under-18 girl he is “dating”.

If you believe that R. Kelly deserves to lose his livelihood and freedom for his actions, at least be consistent and demand the same for white male celebrities who have similar dating preferences. If you think R. Kelly’s music should be banned, then demand the same for music by Elvis Presley, Aerosmith, David Bowie and every single musical act whose members had sex with underage groupies- which would be pretty much 95% of all popular music. If you think R. Kelly is a pervert for liking 14-17 year old girls, please explain why you think Jerry Seinfeld, Paul Walker, Wilmer Valderrama , Don Johnson and many.. many others are not perverts. Or you could just admit that it is about race and drop that virtue peddling bullshit.

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on Latest Accusations of Child Abuse Against Michael Jackson

March 5, 2019 7 comments

Most of you must have heard, watched or have some opinion about the recent HBO documentary about long-standing child sexual abuse charges against Michael Jackson. While I am sure that most readers have strong opinions about whether all those accusations against Michael Jackson (as alleged in ‘Leaving Neverland‘) are true or false, there is another way to look at this whole sordid affair. While my take on this topic is unlikely to make most people happy, regardless of where they stand, it is by far the most objective one- even if it is cynical and misanthropic.

So let us start by talking a bit about the history of Michael Jackson’s (MJ) peculiar relationship with children, specifically prepubescent boys. To say that MJ was an odd person, from almost the day he came into public view as a member of ‘The Jackson 5‘ to the day he died in 2009, is an understatement. From his particular phobias, obsession with plastic surgery, building a personal entertainment part aka Neverland, having a pet chimpanzee and a whole list of other bizarre behaviors and public appearances too long to list. MJ might have been a musical genius, but he was a truly screwed up-person and he made no attempts to hide this side of himself.

1] MJs obsession with spending time around and interacting with prepubescent boys (as opposed to boys and girls) has been public knowledge since the mid- to late- 1980s. I clearly remember people talking about it as far back as 1987-1988. Moreover, his lack of normal sexuality was a comedy punch-line even earlier. It is highly disingenuous to pretend that people who listened to his music were unaware of his.. well.. behavioral peculiarities. Short of publicly declaring his sexual interest in prepubescent boys or hanging a sign around his neck with that claim, it is hard to see how he could have been more open about this obsession.

2] MJ had a very screwed-up childhood, thanks in large part due to his greedy asshole of a father. However, some of his behavioral oddities clearly went beyond those caused by serious childhood abuse. His interest in prepubescent boys, and almost total lack of sexual interest in adult women or men, falls squarely into that category. While having a fucked-up childhood can explain his obsession with plastic surgery, obsessive-compulsive behavior and even severe anxiety and insomnia- it just cannot explain such a specific sexual orientation.

3] This is why I find it odd that few people have publicly talked about culpability of the parents of those boys in enabling such behavior. Face it.. MJ did not kidnap their children or threaten them with dire consequences if they did not allow him to spend time with him. Indeed, the parents (especially mothers) of those boys were more than willing to enable MJ to do what he wanted with their boys. And why not.. he gave them lavish gifts of money, cars, houses etc in return. Unless the mothers of those boys are willing to plead mental retardation or severe mental illness, it is obvious they knew what was going on and they did not care.

4] While the idea of pimping your own children might horrify most people, or at least make them pretend to be, this type of behavior is surprisingly common. There is a reason we have terms such as “stage mom”, “pagent mom”, “model mom”, “dance mom” and “sports dad”. Note that it usually the mother who will pimp out her children, especially her daughters. One of the more infamous example of a “stage mom” and how far they can go involves Teri Shields, better known as the mother of Brooke Shields. Search for images of ‘Brooke Shields by Gary Gross’ on bing.com or duckduckgo.com. Those photos of a prepubescent Shields were commissioned by her mother who also approved her on-screen nude scenes in Pretty Baby when she was 12.

5] Some of you might remember the recent trial and conviction of Larry Nassar for molesting hundreds of barely pubescent girls for over a decade when he was team doctor for the USA national gymnastics team. Do you really believe that nobody else suspected or knew what was going on over all those years and hundreds of girls? Ever considered the possibility that too many parents and officials did not care about care enough? Do you really think that people around Jerry Sandusky did not know what he was doing to all those boys he was allegedly “mentoring”. But how is any of this relevant in the case of MJ and his accusers?

6] Well.. why are we pretending that the parents (especially mothers) of those boys had no role or agency in enabling what MJ allegedly did? Were the parents of those boys so naive, retarded or poorly informed to have never heard all those rumors about MJs attraction for prepubescent boys? Let us for a moment assume that they did not believe any of those rumors, but how could they have ignore how screwed-up he was in many other respects. And let us be honest about one thing, MJ never tried to hide or deny his weird behaviors. In fact, he celebrated them

The point I am trying to make is that we should not keep on pretending that the parents of those boys did not play a very active role in encouraging and enabling MJs behavior in addition to help him cover it up. Even the two boys, James Safechuck and Wade Robson, who now accuse him of molesting them testified in court that he did no such thing in 2005, when they were in their early- to mid- 20s. It also does not help that MJ died almost a decade ago, on May 25th 2009. So what I do think about this sordid saga. Well.. he likely molested those two kids and more. Their parents almost certainly knew what was going on- but the gifts, money and attention more than made up for what MJ was doing. And ya.. all of this was, and is, about money and fame not justice.

What do you think? Comments?

Barack Obama is the Political Equivalent of Bill Cosby

March 3, 2019 11 comments

Let me start this post by making one seemingly outrageous prediction- a couple of decades from now, the legacy of Barack Obama will be widely seen as similar to that of Bill Cosby today. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Obama is going to be tried and sentenced in court for drugging and raping women as Bill Cosby was in 2018. Rather, Obama and his specific brand of neoliberal black respectability politics will elicit the same degree of revulsion and pity as the mention of Bill Cosby and his older brand of that same viewpoint do today. Some readers might remember my previous series on why the Obama presidency was a disaster for establishment democrats.

The parts relevant to this post are that Obama was, politically speaking, a Reagan-era republican whose policies either preferentially hurt the interests of black people (e.g during the foreclosure crisis after 2008) or did very little to help them (e.g. police brutality, drug decriminalization and criminal justice reform). But more importantly, he did all of this while claiming the mantle of black leadership- which is a fancy way of saying that he was a conman who advanced his career as the ‘great black hope’ while at the same time stepping over a large number of innocent black people. And he still received over 95% of votes by black people during his re-election in 2012.

But how does any of this make him similar to Bill Cosby? Well.. for beginners, Barack Obama and Bill Cosby, in addition to many currently serving black political leaders, are part of what is best defined as black respectability politics. In fact, the black backlash against Obama has already started to build as we can see in the NYT piece which correctly points out how Obama used the white fear of young black men to advance his career and make himself rich. I would go so far as to say that Obama is now seem more positively by white people than black people (except maybe older black women). But how does this make him the political equivalent of Bill Cosby?

To understand this, we have to go back to an era decades before most of us (including me) were born. Bill Cosby, you see, was one of the first black entertainers in USA who was both widely successful and considered respectable. His standup comic career started in the early 1960s, an era when many states in USA still had separate drinking fountains for white and black people and Jim Crow laws are still in vogue in the retarded.. I mean southern.. states. More relevantly, this was an era when every black person in showbusiness was either portrayed as either a slave, servant, stupid, subhuman or otherwise flawed. If you do not believe this, just check out any movie On YouTube with black characters from the pre-1960 era.

So how was Cosby able to succeed in that era? Well.. for two reasons. Firstly, he was able to put forth the image of an articulate, intelligent and harmless black man telling good but inoffensive jokes for his white audience. Secondly, his success with white audiences at a time when there were few universally famous black entertainers resulted in him receiving unconditional support from his black audience. Barack Obama was the first black politician with a national reach who successfully appealed to white voters tired of idiots such as Bush43. His popularity among the black community increased only after it became obvious he could beat HRC in 2008 primaries.

And this brings us to the question as to why Obama had a large white following before getting a similar black one. Well.. in case it is not obvious enough, the appeal of Obama to white voters was almost exclusively based in the fact that he portrayed himself as an articulate, intelligent and harmless black man who shared many of the beliefs about themselves and those ‘other undesirable’ people. Sure.. he changed his speaking style in front of predominantly black audiences and pretended to care about the issues affecting them- but let us face it, he never cared about them. While his pre-2004 political career in Chicago is rarely talked about nowadays, it is a well-known fact that he built it by colluding with all sorts of shady people and causes, including urban “gentrification”.

In other words, Obama was always willing to walk over multitudes of poor black people to further his own career. Ironically, he would then turn around and try to get them to vote for him because of his skin color. This is also why his rise in local Chicago politics was slow until a set of unusual circumstances allowed him to win a Senate seat in 2004, thereby giving him a national stage. Yes.. that is correct- if Jerri Ryan (of Star Trek fame) had not sued her then husband for divorce and revealed lurid details about their sex life, Barack Obama would not have been elected to the Senate in 2004. To make a long story short, he used his new-found visibility to position himself as a national-level black leader who just happened to more popular with whites.

But why did Obama’s popularity take off so quickly among white voters? Well.. for starters, he studiously avoided talking about the legacy of racial discrimination in USA- and when he did broach that topic, Obama tried to make it sound that most of it was in the past (at least when talking to whites). He was also clever enough to not support the Iraq War and generally take positions which looked good on paper but entailed no real sacrifice on his part. He portrayed himself as the political equivalent of Cliff Huxtable, and that does make Michelle Obama his Clair Huxtable. The LIEbral class in USA ate all that shit up because they could finally support a token black politician and tell themselves and others that they were not racist.

There is a reason why writers on SNL and rich white LIEbral actors still sing the praises of Barack Obama, in spite of the sheer mediocrity of his presidency- not unlike how Bill Cosby’s career took off in 1970s and 1980s, despite the mediocrity of his family friendly acts and shows. A lot of white people just wanted to make themselves and others around them believe that they were good people and not really racist. And there is one more major similarity between Barack Obama and Bill Cosby. Both were, and are, big proponents of the scam of black respectability politics. See.. according to proponents of black respectability politics, racial discrimination against blacks in USA was their own fault and could be totally corrected by embracing CONservative beliefs.

As it turns out, that bullshit does not work and racism against black people in USA is due to the perception of their skin color by white people- most of whom are incredibly mediocre. Sure.. black respectability politics can help a few black people (Bill Cosby, Barack Obama, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris etc) succeed, but they can do so only by screwing over many scores of people who look like them in order appease a few rich white people who might throw them some crumbs. Some might describe this behavior as treacherous, but that is what still passes for black misleadership (political and cultural) in USA. Hopefully this will change..

To summarize, both Barack Obama and Bill Cosby are street-smart, but mediocre, men who built their careers by pandering to white liberals while simultaneously screwing over tons of black people and then demanded fealty from the very people they abused to make their benjamins.

what do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Mar 2, 2019

March 2, 2019 4 comments

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

Amateur Shower Cuties: Feb 23, 2019 – Slim amateur cuties in the shower.

Amateur Cuties in Open Bath Towels: Feb 25, 2019 – Amateur cuties opening their towels.

Amateur Apron Cuties: Mar 1, 2019 – Amateur cuties wearing aprons in the kitchen

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized