Archive for July, 2019

NSFW Links: July 31, 2019

July 31, 2019 Leave a comment

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

3D Spanking Toons: Jul 25, 2019 – 3D rendered toons of spanked cuties.

Spanking Art: July 29, 2019 – Drawings of two, or more, cuties getting spanked.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Why Do Certain Ethno-Cultural Groups Have Bad Political Instincts?

July 29, 2019 14 comments

As regular readers know, in the past I have written more than a few posts about certain odd and self-damaging patterns of behavior exhibited by blacks in USA. To be very clear, these patterns are very different from those conjured up by racist white losers of all ideological persuasions. For example, it is my opinion that excessive religiosity among black community and a strong desire to attain respectability and “acceptance” from whites has greatly hurt their ability to attain real legal equality. Then there is the issue of the black leadership class who still enjoy considerable support among black people even though they haven’t done shit all to improve the lives of their most enthusiastic supporters. We also cannot forget that most black people (especially from the older generation) are indifferent to the murders of black men by police.

The question, then, is as follows: why have all of the post-WW2 civil rights movements achieved so little? Now, I am sure that some of you might counter that by pointing out that mob lynching has ceased to exist since the 1950s or that Barack Obama was elected president, twice. While I certainly don’t deny that there have been some improvements in the area of racial equality since the 1950s, most of them occurred in the 1960s and early 1970s. In other words, systemic racism in USA has not diminished much beyond 1974. Don’t believe me? Look at the massive increase in mass incarceration (predominantly of black men) since the early 1980s, but especially during the 1990s and 2000s. What about the continued and abject neglect of black-majority areas within large cities, often run by democrats.. many of whom are also black.

Policies such as ‘stop and frisk’ in NYC have always targeted black men, despite that city being a democratic party stronghold. Similar policies and much worse was implemented in LA during the 1980s and 1990s, which ultimately led to LA riots and the OJ Simpson verdict. Are you starting to see what I am getting at.. the democratic party has not delivered to the one group of voters who are its strongest supporters. To be clear, I am not suggesting a Blexit or some bullshit spouted by black CONservative puppets. To make matters worse, the democratic party and its leaders have done more than just ignoring the demands of their black supporters. As some might remember, most of the laws which caused the massive spike in mass incarceration during the 1990s were passed by a democratic president and co-written by democrats such as Joe Biden.

And things didn’t get much better after Obama was elected in late-2008. For starters, he was the literal embodiment of neoliberal black respectability politics. His administration went out its way to preferentially screw over black homeowners who were underwater on their mortgages. Though he lived in Chicago for many years prior to becoming president, Obama did not even bother to address issues such as police brutality towards black men until cheap smartphones and social media made it to impossible to ignore. He belittled concerns of predominantly black cities such as Flint, Michigan, but always had tons of time for carefully scripted photo-ops with rich black celebrities and a few token blacks. And even after leaving office, he can’t seem to stop being the political version of Bill Cosby. And yet, he allegedly still has extremely high approval ratings among blacks, especially the older ones. So, what is going on?

Why does a black president who did as much for blacks as Reagan did for gays dying of AIDS manage to still enjoy this degree of popularity among blacks? Do you think a closeted president who ignored gays in the 1980s like Reagan did, be similarly forgiven let alone be celebrated by the gay community? Even though the Indian community in USA is not known for high levels of self-respect, the names of people such as Nikki Haley and Booby Jindal are usually uttered with contempt, nor praise or forgiveness. Have you seen Arab Muslims celebrate co-ethnics who turn traitors against their community? And yet, Obama enjoys record high approval among the black community- especially those born before 1970. How exactly does a guy who did less than nothing for the community which he pretends to represent still be celebrated by that community.

His ex-VP, Joe Biden is the lead choice for black voters in the ongoing democratic primary in spite of being the driving force behind legislation such as the 1994 crime bill, 1996 welfare reform bill, 2005 bankruptcy bill and many others which have destroyed the lives of millions of black people. Do you think holocaust survivors would vote for a concentration camp commandant? Seriously.. what the fuck is going on? Do older black people have such low standards for their leaders that they would gladly vote for somebody promises to kick them less often than the other one? This attitude is even more remarkable once you realize that democratic party is incapable of winning a national election without their vote. What is stopping black people in USA from demanding their rightful share in the aftermath of an electoral victory by the democratic party?

What do you think? Comments?

MultiCellular Life Arose More than Once and is Far Older Than We Think

July 27, 2019 2 comments

During some background work for my series about why belief in anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalypticism, I came across some interesting new evidence for multicellular life evolving far earlier than is common “scientific consensus”. But before we go there, let me first give you a bit of relevant background and explain certain concepts. First, life on earth is over 3.5 billion years old since the oldest undisputed microfossils of single-celled organism which resemble modern-day bacteria (Prokaryotes or Archaea) are at least that old. However, there is evidence for bacteria-like microfossils in even older rocks. And evidence for 4 billion year old life exists at more than one location. And yes.. there are still many in the “scientific community” who do not want to believe that life could have existed in the Hadean eon (4.6-4 billion years ago).

It is, however, important to understand that life on earth for the first 2 billion or so years was almost certainly unicellular. But how can we be so sure that this was the case. The simple answer to that question is, atmospheric oxygen, or more precisely its lack. See.. all existent life on earth has a common ancestor (DNA/RNA based), but that common ancestor was unlike almost all of the life on earth today, for a simple reason. Oxygen constitutes about 21% of our atmosphere now, but it was a trace gas (likely less than 0.1%) when the Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago and remained so until about 2.5-2.4 billion years ago. And we know that was the case, because there is a huge amount of evidence for the point in geological history when oxygen levels finally rose above 1%. And this change had a profound effect on the Earth, because it is linked to the longest period of global glaciation in Earths’s history– one lasting almost 300 million years.

But back to the type of microorganisms which lived on earth prior to the Great Oxygenation Event. The first ones were almost certainly Chemoautotrophs who survived under anaerobic conditions. They were followed by Haloarchea which use Rhodopsin rather than Chlorophyll for photosynthesis. Bacteria which use chlorophyll came later, but were almost certainly around by 3.5-3 billion years, based on the presence of fossil stromatolites and microfossils. The key connection between these distinct groups of bacteria is their ability to survive and grow without atmospheric oxygen. Moreover, cyanobacteria release oxygen during photosynthesis. So what happened to all the oxygen released by them for the first billion or so years of their existence? Well.. it reacted with available sinks of gaseous oxygen in the atmosphere, on land and in oceans. In other words, all that oxygen reacted with atmospheric methane, terrestrial deposits of iron and other readily oxidizable elements. Atmospheric levels rose only after these sinks were saturated.

While I am not going into the many effects of rising atmospheric oxygen on levels of methane and CO2, the short version is that levels of methane fell a lot, while those of CO2 increased. FYI- methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the sun was less brighter in the past. All of this led to a long series of ice ages that lasted about 300 million years. But why do the levels of atmospheric oxygen matter? The simple reason is the energetic of anaerobic vs aerobic respiration is such that only the former can support multi-cellular life. This is not to say that rise in oxygen levels had no major effect on microbial life. Indeed, the rise must have killed most of the previously existing species of anaerobic microorganisms on earth. Today strict anaerobes exist only in certain environments such as under the soil, below ocean sediment, in decaying organic matter, bowels of ruminants etc.

Now let us, once gain, get back to the topic of this post- namely, ancient multicellular life. While bacteria can form mats and films with some external characteristics of simple multicellular organisms, they lack the defining feature- cellular differentiation. Multicellular organisms, you see, are defined by being Eukaryotic and exhibiting cellular differentiation. This is important to understand, because unicellular Eurkayotic organisms (with endosymbiotic mitochondria) have been likely around for about 2 billion years. And you will soon see why that approximate age for Eukaryotes becoming capable of aerobic respiration, through endosymbiotic mitochondria, is very relevant. Now let us talk about the history of scientific belief on when multicellular life first came into existence. Until 1959, geologists and paleontologists were certain that multicellular life came into existence at the start of the Cambrian era. But one pesky problem remained..

How did so many different phyla (many of which are still around) suddenly appear in the fossil record, without any precursors? But for decades, most scientists chose to ignore that question. The funny thing is.. odd shapes which looked like multicellular life-forms had been found in pre-cambrian rocks as early as 1868. But “scientific consensus” being what it is, such discoveries were ignored or explained away as bubbles or concretions for almost a century. It took the discovery of Charnia fossils in 1956-1958 for the evidence of pre-Cambrian life to become strong that it could no longer be ignored. Since then, fossils of multicellular life from the Ediacaran era have been discovered all over the world. While almost nobody today doubts these fossils to be of multicellular life, they raise more questions than answers.

While a few, such as Dickinsonia, can be tentatively assigned as animals (as opposed to plants), most Ediacaran biota does not resemble existing organisms. Even the body plan of many exhibits peculiarities such as fractal branching and radial symmetry, which are basically non-existent in animal phyla today. Also, they seem to lack a circulatory or digestive system, but have a far more structured body than sponges or jellyfish. To make matters more interesting, we do not know what they evolved from- especially given that the Earth had just emerged from an almost 100 million years long glaciation at the start of Ediacaran period. Nor can we can say with certainty, if they evolved into something which survived into the Cambrian period, which started about 540 million years ago. But wait.. there are even older fossils of multicellular organisms.

For the past few decades (1960 onward) the “scientific consensus” slowly accepted the reality of multicellular organisms during the Ediacaran period. But they still maintained that not much happened before 800 million years. Of course, there are multiple sites with fossils in the ‘boring billion’ between 0.8 and 1.8 billion years ago, including red algae from 1.6 billion years ago. And we cannot forget all those trace fossils, found all over the world, of what appear to be tunnels and tracks made by worm-like animals from around 1.5 to 1 billion years ago. However recent discoveries have pushed that date for multicellular life even further back in time.

In 2010, a French-Moroccan professor at University of Poitiers came across what appeared to be fossils of multicellular organisms from 2.1 billion years old black shales of the Paleoproterozoic Francevillian formation in Gabon, Africa. You might member that this was the time when Earth emerged from Huronian glaciation episode. The oxygen levels in the atmosphere had also finally reached about 2%, barely a tenth of today, but enough for primitive multicellular organisms. His group kept returning to that site and finding even more evidence of such fossils at that site, now known as Francevillian biota. Here is a figure from one of his papers in 2014.

and here is another.. FYI, many of disc shaped fossils are a few cm across.

While these fossils are not much to look at, in addition to being controversial because they go against “scientific consensus”, their existence is compatible with what we already knew about atmospheric conditions at that time. As it turns out, 2.1 billion years ago was immediately after the Huronian ice ages, when atmospheric oxygen levels had finally reached somewhere between 1 and 2% and Eukaryotes had recently gained endosymbiotic mitochondria. It is therefore within the realms of possibility for simple differentiated multicelllar animals such as slime molds, proto-fungi, jellyfish-like animals and proto-wormlike creatures to have evolved from unicellular Eukaryotes in the 50-100 million years years after the Huronian glaciation ended.

To be very clear, nobody is suggesting that they possessed dedicated circulatory or digestive systems like those seen in even the most primitive multicellular animals around today. But their overall size and morphology, in addition to the environment under which they were deposited strongly suggest they were multicellular. While we do not know if their descendants evolved into creatures such as those seen in the much later Ediacaran biota, that is irrelevant to the fact that they represent the evolution of multicellularity. My point is that multicellular life began much earlier than believers in the “scientific consensus” are willing to accept. Never forget that it is scientific theories which must adjust to observed reality, not the other way around. Here is a recent paper containing evidence for motility in some members of the Francevillian biota.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts about Robert Mueller’s Congressional Testimony

July 24, 2019 2 comments

As many of you know, earlier today, Robert Mueller finally testified for a few hours in front of two congressional committees about the findings in his eponymous report. While I was occupied with work during most of that disappointing spectacle, checking Twitter and YT later in the day allowed me to catch up with the sad farce.. I mean.. congressional testimony. So here are some of my initial thoughts about the failed spectacle and its immediate aftermath.

1] Robert Mueller’s physical appearance, general demeanor and style of answering questions did him no favors. Unless you are a partisan democrat or mainstream journalist, his performance before the committees was insipid- at best. Maybe the guy did not have a good night’s sleep or perhaps he did not eat breakfast or drink enough coffee. It is hard to deny that he looked like a university student attending an early morning lecture. But why is this even relevant?

Well.. because, for over two years he was widely portrayed in the MSM as some energetic, super-competent and zealous prosecutor who was chosen by destiny to gather enough evidence to finally impeaching Trump. Today he looked and behaved like just another tired 74-year-old guy who wasn’t there willingly or had anything new or interesting to say. It may have been sad to watch for all of his ex-worshipers, but it was also very predictable.

2] Despite what the hacks at CNN and MSNBC are spinning right now, nothing Mueller said today was new or even surprising. His answers to questions from democrats and republicans actually contained less information than the redacted version of his report. Some of them, such as those about his apparent lack of knowledge about previous close ties between some members of his investigative team and Hillary Clinton, made him look less honest than before.

But most importantly, Mueller never said or explicitly implied those magic words which democrats have been yearning to hear for the past two years. He never said (or explicitly implied) that Trump was guilty or should impeached. And it was not for lack of effort by democrats who tried pretty hard to coax those words out of him or somehow get him to go along with their talking points implying the same. Whichever way you look at it, it was a public failure for democrats.

3] As you might have seen on most cable news channels today (and in newspapers tomorrow) attempts to spin his testimony as some sort of “win” for democrats are looking even more hollow than before. Which is especially comic given that the object of their hate is a highly unpopular lecherous orange troll whose sole claim to fame lies in his proclivity to say or tweet increasingly outrageous stuff. The fact that a stupid dumbfuck such as Trump seems less dishonest than the MSM says far more about the later than the former.

To make matters worse (if that was possible) talking heads on cable news and “respectable” pressitutes in print media are acting as if Mueller’s testimony was another big step towards gathering more public support for impeaching Trump. This is distinct from pretending that his testimony was some sort of “win” for democrats. They actually want to pretend as if Mueller’s pathetic performance during those two congressional testimonies was either stellar or pretty good. Someone has to tell them that wrapping a turd in a nice cover doesn’t make it an eclair.

4] It is even more obvious that establishment democrats lack a viable strategy to remove Trump from office or defeat him in 2020. Their anti-Trump strategy is based on endlessly repeating “Trump is a bad bad man” (2016 redux) or praying for a Mueller miracle. Given that the second option is now closed, I expect them to double down on the first. It is as if they learned nothing from 2016. Then again, I have been saying that for some time now.

I do however agree with Michael Tracey that the internal pressure on house democrats to start impeachment investigations against Trump is now going to increase even further. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if Pelosi and company finally gave the wishes of an increasing number of members in their caucus and started such an investigation. In other words, 2019 and 2020 will be even bigger shitshows than 2015 and 2016.

What do you think? Comments?

Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Form of Secular Apocalypticism: 4

July 21, 2019 13 comments

In the previous two parts (link 1 and link 2) of this series, I wrote about multiple and independent lines of paleontological and geological evidence for Earth being significantly warmer during the period between between 34 to 2.6 million years, even though atmospheric CO2 levels during the relevant geological epochs were about the same as today. This fact is more noteworthy as major continents were fairly close to their current locations during that period, especially between the Mid-Miocene (14 M years ago) and end of Pliocene (2.6 M years ago). Furthermore, solar output during that period was almost identical to what we have today. In other words, changes in the levels of atmospheric CO2 is NOT a good hypothesis for why Earth cooled during the Pleistocene (starting 2.58 M years ago). Changes in ocean circulation due to formation of the Isthmus of Panama around that time provides a far better explanation for global cooling during that period.

While I will get back to more paleontological and geological evidence against prevailing beliefs about anthropogenic climate change in later parts of this series, let us look at this whole issue from a different yet complementary angle. As mentioned in the first post in this series, I would have preferred to start that series by talking about the psychological, religious and yes.. racial reasons why people in certain countries desperately want to believe in the bullshit narrative of anthropogenic climate change. So let me begin this part by talking about the similarities between belief in man-made global warming or “climate change” and Christianity, especially its Catholic variant. As early as 2003, Micheal Crichton openly talked about the considerable similarities between belief in man-made climate change and traditional religions. Heck, he even wrote a novel based on that premise. I am now going to take that idea further, much further.

The first and most obvious red flag that belief in man-made climate change (MCC) is a religion masquerading as science comes from the label its followers use to describe those who refuse to share their belief system. If you label somebody as a “denier” you are talking about a religion or ideology NOT science. Let me explain that point a bit further. Have you ever heard of “gravity deniers” who claim that gravity does not exist? Why not? Ever heard of people who “deny” that antibiotics can cure diseases caused by microorganism sensitive to them? Again.. why not? How people who believe that internal combustion engines, electricity, computers etc are not real? Note that I intentionally choose examples where lay people do not understand the details of how all those things work, and yet.. there are hardly any deniers when it comes to those topics.

It all comes down to whether something can be measured independently and reproducibly. While we cannot see gravity, we can measure it very accurately as well as observe it effects. Effects of antibiotics on microbes can be measured and ascertained in vitro (petri-dish type tests) and in vivo (live animals, including humans). Similarly, you can drive a car, turn on the light and read this article on your computer. In other words, it is not even necessary to convince people about the reality of these things. Now you know why you haven’t met somebody trying to convince you that the sky is blue, ice is cold to touch or fire is hot. It is simply not necessary. But haven’t there been examples throughout history where people used to believe something different from what they do now? And what finally changed their minds?

Well, here is one recent example. As some of you might remember, throughout the 1980s and well into the mid-1990s, many people did not believe that HIV caused AIDS. So how did that change? To understand that, you have to first acknowledge the two main reasons why many people in those decades were skeptical about HIV causing AIDS. The first, and minor, reason was that killing CD4 cell with HIV outside the body required almost thousand times higher viral concentrations than those measured in people suffering and dying from the disease. It took over two decades to finally understand how HIV causes death of those cells in the body at far lower levels than those required in cell cultures. And yes, the mechanisms are quite different.

But the second, and far more important, reason was that until the development and approval of second generation protease inhibitors and nucleotide analogues in the late 1990s, the prognosis for people with AIDS was really bad. Many of the first nucleoside (not nucleotide) analogues used to treat HIV were pretty toxic and lost efficacy within a year or two. Even the very first protease inhibitors approved for human use in mid-1990s had tons of side-effects and required people to take dozens of pills every single day. The prognosis of AIDS changed only after newer, less toxic and far more effective drugs became available. And guess what, the vast majority of people stopped questioning the link between HIV and AIDS. It was that easy.

Now let us apply the concepts we discussed above to the issue of belief in man-made climate change, beginning with- is it a problem? I mean.. is it really a problem if the global temperature goes up by 2-3 degrees Celsius? Based on paleontological records, the earth was far greener and productive (than today) during the Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene (34-2.6 M years ago). In other words, a significantly larger fraction of the land surface on Earth would have been suitable for agriculture during those eras than today. More importantly, the increase in global temperature was far more pronounced in areas that are today temperate than in those which are tropical. There is also no evidence that deserts were bigger in those epochs, and considerable evidence to the contrary. To put it another way, a slightly warmer earth = more rain, greenery and much nicer climate at higher latitudes. I, for one, fail to see the problem.

But.. but.. what if it leads to a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth, like on Venus? To be pretty blunt, the sheer amount of CO2 (like 40-50x all known organic carbon) and other greenhouse gases necessary for anything even close to that would require raising the temperature of earth’s surface near the boiling point of water. See.. releasing even a fraction of that much CO2 in the atmosphere requires the inexorable chemical dissociation of carbonate minerals (chalk, limestone etc) which are currently on (or just below) the surface of land and ocean floors. Our planet would cease to inhabitable for any organisms other than some bacteria long before we reached the point of a runaway and planetwide greenhouse effect. Also, we have not reached that point in over 4.6 Billion years. And this has not been for lack of trying.

Earth’s geological history has seen multiple massive basalt flows that ended up covering areas as large as continental USA upto 3-5 miles high and lasting for a couple of million years in some cases. The sheer amount of CO2 and other gases pumped into the atmosphere during those times makes our current attempts seem incredibly puny by comparison. FYI- most volcanic gas is a mixture of H2O (water vapor) and CO2 with a decent amount of SO2. And yes, I know that some of those outflows are connected with mass extinctions. But my point still stands. It took two large basalt flows, one in China and another in Siberia (the later being as large as the continental USA and lasting for over a million years) to cause the largest mass extinction in past 540 million years. And even that was insufficient to cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

In the next part, we will go into the close similarities between Christianity and the secular religion of anthropogenic climate change. I will show you why this religion and its immediate precursor aka environmentalism only started gaining traction in the 1970s. You will see the connection between the terminal demographic decline of whites in the “west” and their eagerness to believe in this religion. You will also see the connection between the relative decline of the “west” in past two decades to the desire among its elites to convince others (especially non-whites) about MCC.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019 Leave a comment

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

Amateur POV BJs: July 9, 2019 – Amateur cuties sucking on the glans.

More Amateur POV BJs: July 9, 2019 – Amateur cuties licking the glans.

Amateur POV BJs: July 12, 2019 – Amateur cuties deepthroating.

More Amateur POV BJs: July 12, 2019 – Amateur cuties stuffing their cheeks.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Form of Secular Apocalypticism: 3

July 18, 2019 13 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how there is lots of paleontological evidence that Antarctica (as late as 2.6-2.3 million years ago) was much warmer than it is today. This becomes extremely relevant to any debate about anthropogenic climate change since its ardent believers keep harping about how greenhouse gases released by human activity will, directly and indirectly, cause the ice sheet at both poles to melt and causes sea level rises not seen in many millions of years. As readers have probably figured out by now, the biggest problem with this argument is that Antarctica was far less glaciated until the last two million years. To put it another way, that continent was much warmer over millions of years when the atmospheric CO2 was either equal to or less than current levels. And this occurred while the continents were at their current positions.

So let us talk about paleontological evidence for the most recent forests on that continent. But before that, have a look at first figure (below) to familiarize yourself with its major geographical features- as they appear today. As you can see, Antarctica looks like two continents smushed together and that is sorta correct. Based on surveys using ice-penetrating radar, the larger part aka East Antarctica looks like just another continent with plains, hills and mountain ranges. West Antarctica, on the other hand, is dominated by a striking series of parallel mountain ranges and an unusually wide continental shelf. Note that removing all that ice would cause some of the land currently below sea level to rebound due to isostatic rebound. Here is another link to what lies under that thick ice sheet. Antarctica is like a larger and more mountainous version of Australia.

The 2nd longest mountain range in Antarctica, which partially sticks above the ice, is known as the Trans antarctic mountains or TAM. FYI, the longest one in that continent is found in West Antarctica and is known as the Antarctandes Anyway, back to TAM. You might notice that parts of this range runs pretty close to the geographical south pole. One of the main passages through this range to the polar plateau beyond is a very long and large glacier known as the Beardmore Glacier. One of first famous and tragic attempts to reach the south pole used this route, and oddly enough, is relevant to this topic. The exposed fossil bed of interest aka Oliver Bluffs is located near this glacier. While the plant fossils at this site were first reported in the late 1980s, there is good evidence that Robert Scott of the ill-fated expedition in early 1910s might have discovered this site since he described finding fossilized leaves similar to northern beeches.

Anyway, as you can see in the third figure (below) this area is now very cold, icy and devoid of plant life. While a few coastal areas of Antarctica, especially north of 65 degrees South do have some vegetation- most of it is of the non-vascular type. To date, only two species of vascular plants (Deschampsia antarctica and Colobanthus quitensis) have been found on that continent and they look like stunted shrubs. Oliver Bluffs, on the other hand, is at 85 degrees South and less than 500 km from the south pole. So why did a site that is 20 degrees south to the most southerly parallel currently capable of supporting any vascular plant life host a forest with decent sized southern beech trees and an undergrowth of other plants. More importantly, how was this possible as late as 2-3 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were lower than today?

The fourth figure (below) is a composite of some photographs taken at that site. You might notice that the quality of fossilization is pretty good and one of the layer containing them is sandwiched between two glacier-derived layers implying that that the region went through repeated rounds of glaciation and reforestation. And this brings us to the next question- where did all those seeds for regrowth of these trees come from? While it is not totally impossible that those seeds were dispersed by birds from other continents, the nearest place with such trees (New Zealand) is about 4,000 km away. In other words, it is far more likely that there were more local and permanent forests containing such trees on the Antarctic mainland. But this would mean that a significant part of Antarctica , especially north of 75-70 degrees South and near the ocean was not covered by an ice sheet. Moreover, even the inland ice sheets at that time must have been significantly thinner and smaller than today. So what was going on?

Here is one recent and accessible paper which goes into some detail about various methods used for reconstructing temperature conditions at the Oliver Bluffs site. As you can see, these plant fossils have been dated to the Pliocene (5.3-2.6 million years ago) for past thirty years. Also scientists have been talking about their implication on the climate of that region for almost that long. While some have tried to dispute the dating of these fossils, it is increasingly clear that they do indeed come from somewhere between 4 and 2.6 million years. For example, analysis of pliocene marine sediments from an offshore drill core dated to between 5 to 2.2 million years and over a thousand km from the site with those plant fossils has revealed the presence of fossil nothofagous pollen including from the species found at Oliver Bluffs.

To quickly summarize, there is evidence that many coastal regions of Antarctica were about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than today and resembled parts of Northern Canada, Inland Alaska and Northern Russia during the late Pliocene (2.6-2.3 million years ago). It is also likely that the inland icesheets during that era were significantly thinner and smaller than those present today. Let me remind you that this was during a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were identical or lower than those seen today. Are you beginning to see the problem with current propaganda driven narratives about “global warming” and “anthropocentric climate change”?

What do you think? Comments?

Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Form of Secular Apocalypticism: 2

July 14, 2019 5 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote that over the past 540 million years, there hasn’t been much correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 and average global temperatures. Believers in the secular religion of anthropogenic global warming might attribute this to continents having different relative and absolute positions in the past due to plate tectonics. Therefore, I urge you to have a look at this YouTube clip of the reconstructed positions and movements of continents over that period. As you will notice pretty quickly, the relative and absolute positions of many continents does change a lot over that period. FYI- relative positions of these continents (more precisely their constituent cratons and shields) over that time-span has been deduced via a combination of techniques ranging from geology, paleontology, chemical and isotope analysis etc.

The fact that atmospheric levels of C02 ranging from 20x to 2-3x those seen today had little effect on average global temperature over such a long time-span and variety of continental arrangements, if anything, bolsters the argument about it being a relatively minor player in the larger scheme of things. Also note that most modern continental landmasses, except India and Australia and to some extent South America were near their current latitudes by 80 million years (at 5:10 in first clip) or about 15 million years before dinosaurs went extinct. Furthermore, the Eocene Thermal Maximum (at 5:38) occurred when most major continents were pretty close to their current latitude and longitude. Also, the most recent cycle of ice ages began about 6 million years ago (6:24-6:34) when all continents were, for practical purposes, at their present location.

Let us move to a related topic, namely for how long has the current ice-sheet covering Antarctica been around. As you will soon see, the answer is more surprising and complicated than you might have expected. So let us first talk about the position of that continent relative to the geographical south pole for the past 540 million years, as seen in second clip. Long story short, some part of the modern Antarctic continent has been within the southern polar circle (south of 66.5 degrees S) for the past 400 million years.. which is, geologically speaking, a pretty long time. More surprisingly, the geographical south pole has been within the land mass of Antarctica for at two extended periods within those 400 million years- from 0 to 120 million years ago and 260 to 350 million years ago. To put it another way, Antarctica has been the south polar continent (often along with Australia) for a bit longer than vertebrates first crawled on dry land.

So how was the climate in Antarctica during the past 400 million years? Well.. for a good portion of that period, it was what we would today classify as temperate, albeit with an interesting twist due to being loacted at extreme southern latitudes. It may have been warmer (subtropical?) during the period between 240-400 million years ago, but once again with that peculiar seasonality. The more peculiar and relevant part is that Antarctica has been pretty close to its current position for the past 80 million years and had a cool temperate climate for at least half that period. In other words, having long dark winters and long bright summers did not cause that continent to become a barren and frozen wasteland for many tens of millions of years.

The first evidence of some glaciation on that continent in the past 200 million years seems to have occurred around 40-35 million year ago. So what caused this cooling? Well.. the current explanation is that it was due to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (see figure below) which started up after both South America and Australia had separated from Antarctica to a point where such a current could form. The popular conventional view is that ACC created a cold barrier around Antarctica about 35 million years ago and it hasn’t ever gotten warmer since then. Indeed, official information sources on the internet try to endlessly repeat this lie. To be clear, nobody is denying that the ACC has been there in its current form for the past two million years. But the evidence for climate on Antarctica for past 35 million years is far more complicated than many “credentialed experts” are willing to admit in public for reasons that will soon be obvious.

As many of you might have guessed, our knowledge about the geology and paleontology of Antarctica is much sparser than for other continents. Nevertheless, a number of surveys for plant and animal fossils have revealed evidence which simply does not fit with the popular version of Antarctica being a frigid wasteland for the past 35 million years. For example, there is decent evidence that parts of Antarctica had extensive tundra like vegetation throughout the Oligocene to the mid Miocene (24-14 million years ago). Even conifers existed on that continent as late as 15 million years ago. But the most striking evidence concerns the last forests in Antarctica, which existed as late as 2.3-2.6 million years ago.

To be clear, the last forests on that continent were restricted to certain regions and their tree biome was largely made up some of most cold-resistant species. Having said that, we can use the types of tree and micro fossils found at those sites to estimate contemporary climatic conditions. A cold-resistant genus of trees known as Nothofagus aka southern beeches are well represented in those fossils. As luck would have it, living members of that genus can be found in the southern Andes, parts of Australia and New Zealand. To make another long story short, the region of Antarctica where those fossils were found would have to be about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today for even the most cold-tolerant species in that genus to exist. Also, there is a lower temperature limit for vascular plants.

In the next part of this series, I will go into some detail about the fossil and chemical evidence for why we think that those southern beech forest in Antarctica were so recent. As you will see, there are other independent lines of evidence to support the contention that Antarctica looked and felt a lot like certain parts of Northern Canada and Siberia as late as 2.3-2.6 million years ago. But such streams of evidence also create a huge problem for the popular model of Antarctica as an icebox in the past 35 million years. I mean.. why did Antarctica go through pretty large and incomplete cycles of partial glaciation and deglaciation within the past 40 million years, when it was close to its current location, isolated from other continents and levels of atmospheric CO2 were in current range or lower. Also, why did the continent become a frozen icebox only in past 2.3 million years? As you will see in next part, reality has a way of derailing theoretical models.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Jeffrey Epstein’s Interactions with Teenage Girls

July 11, 2019 27 comments

Readers might have noticed that the previous post on Jeffrey Epstein focused almost exclusively on the potential political fallout of new investigations into his numerous dalliances with teenage girls, rather than the “morality” or “legality” of such interactions. Here is why. Firstly, anybody who has read enough human history or studies the world around them understands that human beings, as a species, lack the concept of anything approaching “morality”. Whatever passes as human “morality” is best described as selective hypocrisy towards others while turning a blind eye to their own selves. A good contemporary example of this is people in USA pretending to be outraged by “human rights violations” in China while imprisoning far more people (numbers and percentage) than the later. Or how most Americans pretend that ‘social credit score’ is a bad idea while trying to improve their own private credit scores while also cheering on internet monopolies who sell their personal information to other corporations and government agencies etc.

Similarly, the concept of “legality” is highly dubious. Let us not forget that USA was founded on land stolen from its original inhabitants who were genocided and later built by the institution of race-based slavery. In fact, slaves rather than land or machinery accounted for the largest class of financial assets in pre-1860 USA. Similarly, the systemic theft and genocide of many millions in early 20th century Congo perpetrated by Belgium (under Leopold II) was “legal” as were the various genocides perpetrated by the Turkish (1, 2) and Nazi regimes (3, 4) in the first half of the 20th century. The same can be said about the Late Victorian Holocausts in certain parts of India and Bengal famine of 1943. We should also not forget that overt race-based discrimination was official government policy in USA until the late 1960s and its less obvious manifestations persist to this day. My point being that “legality” is nothing more than whatever the governing system in power chooses to support and enforce.

With that in mind, let us have a look at other aspects of the case against Jeffrey Epstein.

1] Many of you might might have noticed that Epstein is being portrayed as sexual predator of children. But is that correct? Based on what we know about the evidence so far, most of the girls he was involved with were between 15-17. While some might want to see a 15-17 year old girl as a child.. but let us get real.. while girls between 14-17 are not “legally” adults, they are certainly not prepubescent aka children. The medical definition of a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty. There is a very good reason most if us make the distinction between children and teenagers. Even if we assume that Epstein’s encounters were largely with girls between 14-16, there is no evidence (as of yet) that even one was pre-pubescent or even barely pubescent.

2] So let us talk about how age of consent in USA ended up at 18, and yes.. it does vary a bit across jurisdictions. FYI, it varies even more around the world. One can, however, see a trend where most reasonably well-off and stable countries seems to put it around 16. Note that the age of consent in almost all countries is lower than the age at which people can vote or enter into legal contracts as adults. I am guessing that you are now starting to see why the age of consent became what it is now in USA. While it is easy to argue that, for the vast majority of human history, a girl past menarche was considered a women- there is another way to make a similar argument. It starts by considering human agency aka capacity of a person to make conscious decisions and act in a given environment.

Human agency, however, is not an all or none thing. For example, the vast majority of people do not believe that a 10-year old has the mental maturity to vote in elections or enter into legal contracts on their own. However, the same people will not challenge the agency of that child to make choose their hobbies or which peers they develop friendships with. The question is.. why is that so? One could make the argument that choosing hobbies and friends can often be almost as consequential as voting in elections or entering into some legal contracts. In my opinion, the difference between the two categories of decisions (listed above) is correlated to the ability to understand their impact. A 10-year old can quickly gauge positive and negative effects of having certain hobbies and making certain friends. However, he or she, does not yet have sufficient experience with politics or legal contracts to properly assess benefits and risks of their decisions.

3] And this leads us to the rationalization for Patriarchy aka subjugation of women in agriculture-based societies. Have you ever wondered how a small percentage of rich men justified patriarchy, racism and oligarchical systems of governance? Easy.. they justified everything from patriarchy, racism and socio-economic oligarchy by claiming that certain groups such as women, non-whites and non-rich people were either incomplete humans or non-human and hence lacked capability for full human agency. Claiming that the target of abuse, exploitation, theft etc had reduced or no capacity for personal human agency has always been the most important argument to justify such shitty behavior. Indeed, first and second wave feminism, anti-racist movement, anti-colonial movements and socialism spent much time successfully arguing that the groups they represented were capable of full human agency. So why are modern leftists and the “woke” crowd trying to turn back the clock?

The thing is.. human agency does not follow made-up rules of social conventions or currents norms of “respectability”. For example- a woman is not always going to aim for a respectable guy or girl. Indeed, she may actually prefer the so-called ‘bad boy’ type over the pathetic doormats aka beta. Similarly, one has to factor that a woman may end up having sex with guys for all sorts of “less respectable” reasons such as monetary or career gains or just temporary infatuation. In other words, accepting the fact that women have personal agency means also accepting that they will often willingly act in ways that not “proper”, “nice” or “respectable”. But how does this apply to the Epstein saga?

4] Have you ever considered the possibility that all those teenage girls who were blowing or riding Epstein were fully aware of what they were doing and did so voluntarily? But why would they have sex with a guy old enough to be their father? Well.. maybe they did it for the money. Epstein always paid the girls, he had sex with, quite generously. And this is also true for the non-teenage women who had transactional sex with him. One could go so far as to say that having sex with Epstein opened many opportunities for the women he fucked. By all accounts, his so-called “sex slaves” now have far richer lifestyles than they would otherwise have had. But.. but.. what about “human trafficking”. Well.. it is just the modern version of what used to be called “white slavery” in USA.. an ironic term, if you ask me. Long story short, both terms have nothing to do with helping women and everything to do with maintaining a particular racial hierarchy.

Now tell me.. how was willingly giving BJs to Epstein for lots of money any worse than working at Walmart? How was willingly having sex with him for money more degrading than working at Amazon or a subcontractor for FakeBook and Google? Why was willingly having sex with him for money any more nauseating than being on the staff at the mansion or luxury yacht of some rich asshole? How was sucking of Epstein for decent money more dehumanizing than working at a call center? How was jerking him off any more disgusting than working for internet click-bait mills such as BuzzFeed. In summary, it is clear that the teenage girls in question understood what they were doing for money. I am not saying that they liked it, but they went along anyway- for the money. Most importantly, they were clearly mature enough to understand and demonstrate their personal agency.

And you know something else.. the financial and psychological outcome for Epstein’s “sex slaves” has, so far, been much better than those who enlist in the american armed forces.

What do you think? Comments?

New Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein is More Problematic for Democrats

July 8, 2019 7 comments

Over the past few days, many media sites have suddenly started to post long and turgid articles about a reclusive american billionaire known as Jeffrey Epstein. Most focus on two aspects of his life, namely his ‘history’ with underage teen girls and the nature of his fortune. While Epstein’s sexual interest in, and encounters, with teenage girls have been public knowledge since 2008, most of what we knew was based in rumor and hearsay because the non-prosecution agreement his lawyers made with Alexander Acosta, who was district attorney for southern district of Florida in 2008, also sealed the evidence files about that investigation. Consequently, for over a decade mainstream media seldom (if ever) mentioned this case, let alone discuss it in any detail.

It also helped, that Jeffrey Epstein like Harvey Weinstein, had teams of excellent lawyers and knew a lot of powerful and influential people. The list of people who he hung out with reads like a who’s who of american and international political and media figures- such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Charlie Rose, Mike Wallace, Ralph Fiennes, Alec Baldwin, David Blaine, Jimmy Buffett, Ehud Barak, Tony Blair, David Koch and many more. Even more oddly, we still do not understand why so many rich and famous people wanted to party with such a reclusive billionaire, especially since we still don’t understand how he made all that money. And this brings us to the biggest mysteries about Jeffrey did he make all that money?

Epstein was not born into wealth, dropped out of university twice and never finished his degree. According to a recent Bloomberg piece, he initially worked as a tutor at a fancy school, then got a job at Bear Stearns where he rose from entry-level to partner within four years and then left to startup his own wealth management business. And yet he somehow managed to snag a number of long-term billionaire clients. Even though we do not know his exact worth, Epstein owns the most expensive mansion in Manhattan, multiple luxury properties all over USA and Europe, a small island in the Caribbean, a bunch of executive jets and one 727. What makes all of this even stranger is that Epstein’s businesses have almost no public paper trail and it is unlikely he invests in the stock and financial markets like most other rich people or their wealth managers.

Which brings us the next question.. why did so many rich and powerful people hang around and party with him for decades? Was Epstein such a great conversationalist, party host or did he offer them something else in return? While it is tempting to believe that he had enough money to bribe multiple presidents, prime-ministers, famous media figures etc, that is unlikely. Investing money for them or procuring underage teen girls for sex are far better explanations for his popularity with the rich and famous. Maybe a combination of the two? This would also explain why Acosta ended up giving him such a sweet deal in 2008. It is almost certain that somebody as crafty and systematic as Epstein probably has enough photographic and video evidence to put many rich and famous behind bars if they did not exert influence on his behalf.

Also, Epstein (and his acquaintances) were interested in teenage girls, not children. What they were doing wasn’t considered abnormal as late as the 1990s. Lets us now talk the real reason why establishment media is covering something that they largely ignored for over a decade. The short answer is.. Trump. While Acosta might be presented as the target of this expose, you would have be retarded to believe that all this smoke and noise is directed at anyone other than Trump. As many of you know, establishment democrats have gone through over half-a-dozen stupid schemes to get Trump out of office. These range from the ‘Mueller Report’, Stormy Daniels saga, multiple rape accusations to targeting people who work in administration via pressure from other elites. As many of you also know, they have failed and Trump is still in office.

Reopening the case against Epstein is yet another establishment democrat brain-fart which they believe will magically result in impeachment or utter humiliation of Trump. The major problem with this belief is that democrat-leaning coastal elite are very over-represented in Epstein’s black book. To put it another way, people like Bill Clinton and big political honchos from coastal ‘blue’ states are going to in trouble way before the trail of evidence reaches Trump. Furthermore, the effete ivy-league educated leaders of that party have not displayed sufficient ruthlessness and strategic thinking to pull off something like this. Let us not forget that Epstein is a pragmatic person without party loyalties who will throw tons of democrats under the bus if necessary.

To summarize, reopening the case against Jeffrey Epstein was a really dumb move that is far more likely to hurt the political careers of prominent establishment democrats than Trump. Then again, democrats have perfected the art of scoring self goals and shooting themselves in the foot.

What do you think? Comments?

Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Form of Secular Apocalypticism: 1

July 6, 2019 6 comments

Over the years, I have written a few posts about why anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalypticism whose origins can be traced to the ongoing terminal demise of the ‘white’ west. However, I never got around to writing an in-depth series about that topic- until now. My biggest concern about writing such a series was its potential length and the necessity of explaining many concepts as it unfolded. But it gradually became obvious that ‘kicking the can down the road’ was not a viable long-term strategy. So, I have decided to start writing it- even if the results turn out to be initially less brilliant than hoped for.

With that out of the way, let me quickly describe the structure of this series. While it would have been preferable to first tackle the psychology underlying belief in anthropogenic climate change, doing so would have created a series of long and turgid posts which were unlikely to capture the readers interest. Instead, I have decided to mix posts about interpretation of scientific evidence with others about related psychological concepts. The first couple of posts in this series will be about the lack of correlation between atmospheric concentration of CO2, average surface temperature of earth and mass extinctions over past 550-600 million years of geological history.

But before we go there, let us be clear about a few things. Measuring atmospheric CO2 directly and accurately is only possible if you have an actual sample of the atmosphere. All measurements of atmospheric CO2 from the past are therefore indirect, albeit to varying degrees. For example, while it is possible to measure CO2 dissolved in ice-cores samples, the numbers have to adjusted for the atmospheric temperature at which the tested snow originally precipitated using isotopic analysis, because the solubility of CO2 in water and ice is temperature dependent. Ice-core measurements, in contrast to other methods, do have good temporal resolution.

There is however a upper-age limit to using ice cores and the oldest one, we are somewhat certain about, is about 2.7 million years old. Also, there may be a hard limit on how far we can go back with ice cores since parts of mainland Antarctica within 483 km (300 miles) of the south pole were seasonally ice-free as late as 2.6 million years ago. The next part of this series will explore how those parts of Antarctica were 30 degrees Celsius warmer than today, even though the atmospheric CO2 levels were not that different. Measuring atmospheric CO2 from a time before 2 million years requires different, and even more indirect, methods of measurement.

Without going into too much detail here (you can always read the source paper), this category of methods is based on atmospheric CO2 being directly correlated to preferential weathering of certain minerals in rocks (through rain) and carbonate deposition in the oceans. It also factors many other things from stable isotope measurement of certain elements in dated rock/soil samples, size and position of continents in past, outgassing through known large-scale volcanic activity and many others to estimate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The relevant part is that this model, even in its crude older form, gives an acceptably accurate measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere upto 600 million years ago. Ya.. the error margins can be upto 50% of the measurement, but it is still good enough to tell us that the earth used to have far higher atmospheric CO2 in the past. Reconstruction of average surface temperature during these eras is based on fossils records of plants and animals, various isotopic ratios and recreating positions of landmasses using paleomagnetic data.

But how much more CO2? Well.. it was almost 20 times higher than today in the Cambrian era and about 10 times more during the Ordovician. And it remained in the 8-12 x range for the Silurian and Devonian. Notably, these were the four geological ages when most animals and plants lived in or near oceans and other water bodies. It was also the heyday for Mollusks and shelled Cephalopods. Evidently, all that atmospheric CO2 had no negative effect on oceanic pH.

More curiously, the Ordovician-Silurian (O-S) extinction was largely due to a short spell of global glaciation. And this global ice age occurred when CO2 levels were over 12 times higher than today. It was only in the late Devonian (after plants had finally established themselves on land) that atmospheric CO2 levels started to fall, and there was another moderate sized extinction towards the end of that age. The next age, Carboniferous, saw a massive expansion of plants of land and resulted in a further decrease in atmospheric CO2 until it was about 2-3 times current levels. It was also the age of high oxygen levels and giant insects.

Atmospheric CO2 levels during the Permian remained low for millions of years but then started to go up. The end of this era saw two very closely spaced and massive extinctions, the End-Capitanian and Permian-Triassic aka ‘The Great Dying’. While CO2 levels went up to about 4-5 times today, temperature increases (especially in tropical and sub-tropical oceans) were insane. There is evidence that the surface temperature of ocean water in subtropical regions exceeded 40 degrees Celsius for a few hundred thousand years. While temperatures did fall afterwards and life recovered, they remained pretty high by current standards. However the climate eventually became wetter, especially after the Carnian Pluvial Event.

The Triassic-Jurassic extinction ended the Triassic and ushered the Jurassic. That geological age saw an increase in atmospheric CO2 but no accompanying rise in average surface temperature. While forests on earth never reached the density and levels they did during the Carboniferous, the Jurassic comes a semi-close second. Earth transitioned into next age, aka Cretaceous, with only a few minor and small extinctions. Initially the cooling seen during the late Jurassic continued, but soon reversed itself and it became almost as warm as the middle-Jurassic. The Cretaceous was also the longest geologic age since the Cambrian explosion and lasted about 145 million years. Atmospheric CO2 levels slowly declined to about 2-3 times today, in spite of the temperature remaining fairly high and constant. Isn’t that odd?

The Cretaceous ended with the Cretaceous-Tertiary/Paleocene extinction. After that the earth recovered from it the climate was still pretty warm and humid. Then we had the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum at around 55 million years and for about 200 k years it so warm that Palm trees grew in Washington State and Southern Canada. Then around 45-35 million years ago, there was another round of cooling and a further slight decrease in atmospheric CO2. However temperatures went up again between 35 and 6 million years ago. The most recent round of global cooling began about 6 to 7 million years ago when a land-bridge between north and south american continents started to form between southern tip of what is today Mexico and northern tip of Colombia. This bridge started to cut off equatorial connection and circulation between the Atlantic and Pacific.

Once that land connection was fully formed about 2.6-2.3 million years ago, global temperatures dropped even further and we started having regular and long ice ages (after almost 300 million years) with brief inter-glacial warm periods. This is also when a lot of tropical and sub-tropical whale species and large marine mammals went kaput and consequently took out predators such as Megalodon. Did you notice that the drop in atmospheric CO2 cannot explain the current stretch of ice ages started around 6 million years ago, nor why they intensified in past 2.3-2.6 million years. Are you beginning to appreciate why I think that the whole anthropocentric climate change theory is bullshit. In the next part, I will show you that as late as 3 million years ago, Antarctica was a significantly warmer continent.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: July 5, 2019

July 5, 2019 1 comment

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

Amateur POV BJs: July 4, 2019 – Amateur cuties giving BJs to thick cocks.

Captioned Spanking Art: July 4, 2019 – Captioned drawings of cuties getting spanked.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

The NRA is Finally Experiencing a Much Needed Membership Revolt

July 2, 2019 4 comments

As regular readers know, I have long held the belief that trying to implement “gun control” or ban them is a stupid idea. It is also my opinion that democratic party has an unfortunate obsession with gun control, which will likely cost them the 2020 election. Curiously, I have also said that the NRA, in its current form, does not have a viable future in spite of internet activism against the NRA being counterproductive. At this point, some of you might be confused about what I am trying to say. So let me quickly restate the obvious. Firstly, any attempt at “serious gun control” is unlikely to have any significant effect on incidence of homicide by firearms, largely because violence in any given society is a factor of massive inequality and (often racial) polarization. That is why countries such as Mexico and Brazil have far higher numbers and rates of homicide by guns than USA, while its is very low in others such as Vietnam and India.

Secondly, even though successful suicide attempts accounts for the majority of firearm deaths in USA, banning guns is unlikely to change its incidence. Indeed countries such as Japan and South Korea have far higher rates of suicide than USA, even though both have ridiculously stringent laws against civilian gun ownership. Having said that, the NRA is a dying organization (for more than one reason) and is increasingly at odds with the views of most gun owners in USA today. That organisation, as it exists today, is stuck in the political landscape of 1980s-2000s. But what does that mean? What was so different about those 2-3 decades. Time for a quick history lesson.. the ‘gun control’ movement in USA as we know it today started in the late 1960s in coastal cities and was racist. It reached its peak in the late 1980 and early 1990s and started dying out after the electoral disaster caused by that infamous 1994 bill about “assault weapons”.

The NRA, as we know it today, can be best understood as manufactured opposition to stop anti-gun laws aimed at non-white people from accidentally infringing on the rights of white people. That is also why it supported many “gun control” laws which preferentially disenfranchised non-whites and went along with cosmetic laws that allowed politicians to claim that they were “doing something about guns”. In other words, the NRA was never meant to be an effective organization for defending 2nd amendment rights. And their scam worked for almost three decades, allowing that organisation to grow by increasing its membership. Then a confluence of trends exposed their impotence and growing irrelevance. The first one was decline of the democratic party in non-coastal parts of the country. Once democrats became irrelevant in many non-coastal states, the coastal hardline “gun control” types became far more prominent in that organization.

To make a long story short, the NRA appeared strong for 2-3 decades only because it colluded with both parties. Beginning in the mid-2000s, the national political landscape changed to the point it could get by with republican party support. And ya.. the much diminished democratic party increasingly became the extreme anti-gun rights party. Some of you might have noticed that, during the last decade, NRA increasingly became a mouthpiece for all sorts of economic right-wing bullshit which had little (if anything) to do with gun rights. It also became a bloated organization full of incompetent parasites who used its financial resources to live a cushy lifestyle- not unlike NGOs, most “non-profits”, charities, universities and political parties. This went on for a decade or so and then November 8, 2016 happened.

The election of Trump and the nature of those in the so-called “resistance” (coastal establishment types) caused a renewed push to ban guns among democrats. A few large mass-shootings in the first two years of his presidency did not help things. To make another long story short, a number of events driven by coastal elites and SJWs such as deplatforming gun-rights people on social media, denying them certain banking services, getting chain stores to stop selling ‘scary looking’ guns, banning novelty items such as bump stocks etc exposed the impotence of NRA. While this would have no consequence if the affected people were black or brown, they were not. Add to this internal fights over monetary issues between Wayne LaPierre vs Oliver North and their cronies. It all came at around the same time and made that organization look corrupt and impotent to its membership and many other gun owners.

As a consequence of this, the NRA has been experiencing a pretty serious membership revolt and disengagement over past few months. But coastal liberal idiots should not rejoice. The gun-right organisations which will replace it are going to be much more demanding than the NRA. Even a rebooted NRA will be far more ideologically rigid and unwilling/ unable to compromise than its predecessor. Furthermore, the proliferation of liberal post-modern bullshitters, SJWs and other assorted ‘virtue display’ peddlers in large corporations has actually hardened the resolve of people to defend their gun rights. And all of this is going to play out during 2020 election season, which promises to be quite the shitshow.

Relevant Clip #1


Relevant Clip #2

What do you think? Comments?