Archive

Archive for November, 2019

The Only Accurate Comedy Sketch on SNL Within the Past Three Years

November 28, 2019 8 comments

In my opinion, SNL has always been the most unfunny and LIEbralism-friendly “comedy” program on network TV by a long shot. If you don’t believe me, have a look at any random YT clip from the Mad TV sketch show (1995-2009). Here are a few examples.. Clip # 1- Wizard of Oz Parody, Clip # 2- Sound of Music Parody, Clip # 3- Gone with the Wind Parody, Clip # 4- Lesbian Coffee house Skit, Clip # 5- Dr. Kylie talking about breast implants and Clip # 6- Cooking for One. To make a long story short, Mad Tv was, by far, the better late-night comedy sketch show. SNL in contrast, especially over part three years, has provided the most unintentionally sad commentary on the state of the LIEbral mind- if that is what you call it. Do you remember how every single show over past 2-3 years has been about Mueller arresting Trump and each new and ineffectual brainfart emanating from the LIEbral elite.

Well.. there was one exception. See.. the week after Trump was elected on Nov 8, 2016, they did put out what was probably their only insightful sketch over the past three years. Maybe this had something to do with Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock being involved with that particular episode. It is one of the most insightful crtiques of white LIEbrals living in coastal cities. Enjoy!

What do you think? Comments?

Overview on Inter-Racial Relationships Over the Past Twenty Years: 1

November 24, 2019 61 comments

Longtime readers might remember that some of my earliest posts were about why I began using escorts. In those and other related posts, I also touched on how racism against non-white men in the area of dating was an important contributor to my decision of choosing the paid route. A few of you might also remember that the events in question occurred during the late 1990s and very early 2000s, when I was in my early to mid 20s. Which leads to an interesting question.. has the general situation and realities surrounding inter-racial dating in western countries changed for the “better” over past twenty years? Are many of the issues I wrote about in the past less common in 2019, than they were in say.. 1998 or 1999? Or are things no better than before?

The very short answer to those questions is as follows: the general situation surrounding inter-racial dating in the west has not changed much over the past twenty years. Indeed, in some ways things have gotten worse than they used to be in the past. But why does it matter enough for me to write another series about the topic? Well.. the simple answer is that those twenty years have also seen a large shift in racial composition of said countries, especially in the younger age groups. But first a bit of background. Over those decades, I have lived in two cities, one with a population of over a million and another with over four million. While the larger city already had a significant non-white population by mid 1990s, the smaller one was extra-white as late as 1999.

Today, things are rather different. The larger city has been majority non-white for well over a decade and white kids are the minority. But more interestingly, the schools and universities in even the smaller city went from being really white to almost 50% non-white during that period. In fact, the majority of students attending primary schools in many parts of that city are non-white. But what does any of this have to do with inter-racial dating? Well.. it comes down to a conversation I had with someone over 15 years ago. At that time, I said something to the effect that disparities in rates of inter-racial dating were due to whites believing themselves to be magically “better” or more “desirable” that others. The other person maintained that it was due to lack of familiarity. I then said that time alone could show who was correct.

It turns out that my cynical take on the topic was correct. See.. if the other person’s theory was right, a large increase in the number of non-white kids attending schools and universities would increase familiarity with whites translating into higher rates of inter-racial dating. So have the rates on inter-racial relationships in the 20-something age group changed significantly between 1999 and 2019? The simple answer is.. a big fucking NO! Some of you might counter by saying that the number of inter-racial couples have increased over past two decades. And to that, I say.. sure. But the percentage of inter-racial couples has remained static and even decreased over that timespan. More importantly, patterns of inter-racial dating have remained static over that period.

Asian male- white female (AM-WF) couples are still the most uncommon type while White male – Asian Female (WM-AF) are the most common type of inter-racial couples. In almost all black male – white female (BM-WF) couples, which is the 2nd most common type, the woman is invariably overweight, plain-looking or older. Similarly in almost every brown male- white female (BrM-WF) couple, the woman is invariably plain-looking and in it for the money. So what is going on? Why are the patterns on inter-racial dating in 2019 almost identical to those of 1999. Why didn’t the large changes in ethnic composition of schools and universities not lead to increased familiarity?

Maybe, it was never about lack of familiarity. Indeed, that excuse was eerily reminiscent of how certain older black people believed that the racial discrimination they faced could be overcome by showing whites that they were a conservative and hard-working aka black respectability politics. Turns out, systemic racism against black people had nothing to do with their behavior and actions and everything to do with their skin color. Who could have known? Similarly, racism against non-whites (especially men) in the sphere of dating had nothing to do with lack of familiarity and everything to do with the ego and self-delusions of a group that is now in a terminal demographic spin. But why take my word for it, have a look at other related patterns.

As many of you know, the premium on being white has gone down a lot since 1999. That group is now the one with increasing mortality and morbidity due to drug overdose, alcoholism and higher rates of suicide. Even outside this continent, whites are not doing well- to put it mildly. Between these issues and higher rates of unemployment due to outsourcing, lower fertility per woman etc, it is not an exaggeration to say that we all know which group doesn’t have an especially bright future. And yet, the attitudes of your average (or median) white man or woman towards inter-racial dating have not changed, even in the younger age groups who have some awareness that their future is not bright. What is going on..

Some of you might counter that by saying that inter-racial relationships are far more accepted by younger white demographics. My counter argument is.. sure, that is what they say but is the belief reflected in their own behavior. It is very easy to support an idea if you don’t have to follow it up with actions. In the next part, I will show you how his hilarious denial manifests itself in popular culture. And ya.. I am fine with the situation, because this slow-motion disaster is following the path I had predicted (and hoped for). If a group wants to take their delusions to their collective demographic graves.. I say, let them do it. In fact, they should be encouraged.

What do you think? Comments?

A Recent Clip of Senator Kennedy talking about Jeffrey Epstein’s Death

November 21, 2019 4 comments

I came across this interesting clip, from two days ago, of Senator Kennedy (R-LA) at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing. The punchline is: “Christmas ornaments, drywall and Jeffrey Epstein – name three things that don’t hang themselves”. And yes.. the clip is on the YT channel of C-SPAN. I am sure that many of you are eager to express your thoughts on this topic.

Here are some of my older posts about this specific topic and Jeffrey Epstein in general.

New Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein is More Problematic for Democrats (after he was rearrested).

Some Thoughts on Jeffrey Epstein’s Interactions with Teenage Girls (after he was jailed).

Initial Thoughts on Jeffrey Epstein’s Suicide While Under Suicide Watch (after his “suicide”).

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting Recent Articles on the Ongoing Global Demographic Decline

November 18, 2019 18 comments

Recently, I came across a number of articles about the ongoing demographic decline in developed countries all over the world. FYI- I plan to write a short series about this topic soon.

Link # 1: The End of Babies

If any country should be stocked with babies, it is Denmark. The country is one of the wealthiest in Europe. New parents enjoy 12 months’ paid family leave and highly subsidized day care. Women under 40 can get state-funded in vitro fertilization. But Denmark’s fertility rate, at 1.7 births per woman, is roughly on par with that of the United States. A reproductive malaise has settled over this otherwise happy land. It’s not just Danes. Fertility rates have been dropping precipitously around the world for decades — in middle-income countries, in some low-income countries, but perhaps most markedly, in rich ones. Declining fertility typically accompanies the spread of economic development, and it is not necessarily a bad thing. At its best, it reflects better educational and career opportunities for women, increasing acceptance of the choice to be child-free, and rising standards of living.

Link # 2: The Global Fertility Crash

While the global average fertility rate was still above the rate of replacement—technically 2.1 children per woman—in 2017, about half of all countries had already fallen below it, up from 1 in 20 just half a century ago. For places such as the U.S. and parts of Western Europe, which historically are attractive to migrants, loosening immigration policies could make up for low birthrates. In other places, more drastic policy interventions may be called for. Most of the available options place a high burden on women, who’ll be relied upon not only to bear children but also to help fill widening gaps in the workforce. Each of the following indicators tells a part of the global fertility story: not just how many babies women have on average, but also how well women are integrated into the workforce, what slice of the income pie they receive, and level of educational attainment.

Link # 3: Armenia’s Looming Demographic Crisis

The sharp drop in births seen in 2001 has continued for another decade. In addition, the births are heavily weighted toward male children (15% more males than females). One can easily understand the additional strain this will cause by 2030 in family formations. Diasporan communities being formed today, who are prospering in their host nations, offers no guarantees of repatriation to Armenia, or even of having close ties with a country their parents chose to leave. The first 30 years of independence set in motion a demographic crisis so deep and lasting that it is unclear whether anything can be done today to rectify it. The resulting national security issues for Armenia are so serious as to jeopardize the viability of the country for the next 30 years.

Link # 4: How to Overcome Losing 600,000 People a Year

A banner at a traffic roundabout urges onlookers to marry North Koreans. Another, with a photo of a pregnant woman, reminds passersby that freelancers and self-employed female workers can benefit from government stipends for expecting mothers. A church hall contains a busy office, staffed by government social workers, that supports brides from Southeast Asia who wed lonely farmers unable to find a local mate. Uiseong’s efforts are laudable, but government programs like these have done little to address the commonly cited barriers to having children. The cost of living, particularly in urban areas, is astronomical; meanwhile the brutal competitiveness of the education system and a work culture that has traditionally placed a premium on long hours leaves little time for family-rearing. Last year, President Moon Jae-in reduced the maximum work week to 52 hours from 68, though not all firms are covered by these restrictions.

What do you think? Comments?

Sodium Vapor Lamps are Better than LED Lamps for Outdoor Lighting: 1

November 16, 2019 3 comments

This is a post about another topic which I had originally meant to write about two years ago. In 2019, many of you either live in a city that uses LEDs lamps for street-lighting or is transitioning to them. In my opinion, changing over from High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps to LEDs of any generation or color temperature is one of more stupid public decisions made in the past decade. Here is a list of reasons for why this is the case.

1] LEDs are not significantly more efficient than HPS lamps. Contrary to the lies pushed by supporters of LED street-lighting, HPS and LED lamps convert electricity to light with about the same efficiency. The typical HPS lamp gives off about 100-150 lumens per watt, while available LED equivalents give off about 130-150 lumens per watt. Some of you might argue that even a 20-30% decrease in the use of electricity is a big saving, but if you actually look at the cost of electricity and the already high efficiency of both light sources, the savings per year for lighting a small city are no more than the salary of a few useless paper-pushers in sinecured posts within the local municipality. In other words, you cannot justify the decision based on conventional actuarial calculations. So ya.. you have to lie and bullshit to justify such a change.

2] The allegedly longer life-span of LED street-lighting has not been verified under real-life conditions. Although LED street-lamps are supposed to last between 50k-100k hours, which is about 2-4 times the 24k hours for HPS lamps, that claim has yet to be properly verified under real life conditions. See.. because HPS lamps have been around for decades, we have a far better understanding of their exact lifespan, reliability and most importantly- modes of failure. We can predict, with great certainty, the duration any given HPS lamp will keep working properly and how much its light output will decrease over time. Also, HPS lamps unlike their LED counterparts fail slowly and gracefully. This is especially relevant since the technology for making HPS is far more standardized than the ones used for making LED lamps.

3] Color Rendering Index (CRI) is largely irrelevant for nighttime street-lighting. One of the popular bullshit lies used to promote LED street-lighting is that they have a better CRI index than HPS. While it technically true that LEDs can have better CRI than HPS, this is almost totally irrelevant for nighttime street-lighting. Here is why. See.. color recognition by the human eye works best under conditions of relatively high light intensity, the unit for which is known as ‘lux‘.It is pretty hard to discriminate color properly well below illumination levels of 50 lux and basically a fools errand to do it below 5 lux. While you can still distinguish a bright red car from a blue one at.. say..10 lux, discriminating between shades of red and blue is really hard at illumination levels at or under 20 lux. Even the most important roads are typically lit to a bit under 10 lux and major intersections always remain under 40 lux.

In most parts of this country and world, you would be lucky to reach a third of those values. To make a long story short, CRI of a light source is largely irrelevant for street-lighting. Artificial lighting powerful enough to restore human color perception to daylight levels requires illumination levels of about 1000-2000 lux. Human Mesopic and Scotopic vision (twilight and low-light vision) under lighting levels created by street-lighting is far more dependent on perception of edges and variations in albedo than color. Which leads us to other problems seen with LED street-lighting.

4] LED lamps, unlike HPS, are highly directional light sources. While the directionality of LEDs makes them useful in certain applications, it makes them inferior to HPS lamps for street-lighting. I am sure that many of you must have noticed that there is often a dark zone between two consecutive streetlights. The thing is.. this effect is far milder with the diffuse and bright light produced by HPS. In contrast, LED streetlights are notorious for large and unpleasant dark zones between them as well poor illumination of adjacent sidewalks, trees, buildings and other visual landmarks. There is a reason why it is easier to quickly visualize everything occurring on or around a HPS illuminated street compared to one lit with LEDs.

Then, there is the issue of glare. LED light sources, by their very mode of operation, have high surface luminosities. While this is not a big issue if they are properly shielded and diffused, the majority of LED street-lights don’t seem to care about such basic design features. Consequently, looking at an LED streetlight (even momentarily) by accident will compromise your low-light vision adaptation to a significantly greater extent than an HPS lamp. All of these issues, and more, make LED street-lighting look and feel inferior to its HPS equivalent. Notice that we haven’t even touched on issues such as color temperature of LED street-lights as well as the effect of bluer night-time light sources on sleep and circadian rhythms etc.

So what is behind the bullshit drive to convert cities to LED street-lighting. Well.. in my opinion, it is a convergence of a few factors. Firstly, it is about money- specifically the profits to be made by making such a switch. Secondly, it is about conformity and group-think, something at which the supposedly “individualistic” west excels. A third, and more cultural reason, is that the west has experienced technological stagnation for past three decades and every small sign of apparent “progress” is pushed hard as proof that the moribund religion of “secular technological progress” is alive and well. I am sure that comments will provide material for a second post on this topic.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Nov 15, 2019

November 15, 2019 Leave a comment

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

Topless Amateur Selfies: Nov 10, 2019 – Topless amateur cuties taking selfies.

Amateur Countertop Belfies: Nov 13, 2019 – Amateur cuties posing for belfies on countertops.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Who Said It: Danny Vinyard in ‘American History X’ or Trump in 2016

November 12, 2019 14 comments

One of my critiques of HRC’s 2016 presidential campaign was that her ivy-league “credentialed” advisers and consultants focused on Trump using “bad words” and his “lack of respectability” as opposed to why his ideas were problematic. I am sure MikeCA is going to chime in and try to tell us that this was not the case. However, even a neoliberal rag such as Vox admitted otherwise. With that in mind, have a look at this clip from ‘American History X’ 1998, specifically the first two and half minutes. Doesn’t his rhetoric remind you of Trump?

Now tell me something.. did any of the ivy-league “credentialed” morons working for HRC ever run an ad campaign which juxtaposed clips from such movies with Trump’s rhetoric? Also, there is no shortage of well-known movies and TV shows conatining neo-Nazi characters expressing similar beliefs. I would have approved a series of wall-to-wall ads containing clips from Hitler speeches juxtaposed with Trump expressing similar sentiments. But the “credentialed” dumbfucks were busy running ads showing children listening to Trump using “bad words” in some speeches and surreptitiously recorded conversations. Way to go.. losers!

What do you think? Comments?

Liberals Have, Also, Irreversibly Lost the War for Ideological Supremacy

November 7, 2019 17 comments

Some readers might have noticed that one commentator on this blog likes to dutifully regurgitate establishment democrat talking points. According to him, anybody who does not agree with the “official version of events” is part of some Russian disinformation campaign or stupid. While I started writing this post to comment on that mindset, it quickly became obvious that it was just one manifestation of a much bigger problem. So let me help you connect the dots by highlighting other manifestations of the same problem. Have you noticed that, within the past 5-10 years, liberals (rather than CONservatives) have become obsessed with censoring anyone with whom they disagree. Ever wonder why that change occurred and why within that particular timespan?

How did we reach the point where LIEbrals, rather than dumbfuck CONservatives, are obsessed with performing overt and fake displays of public morality. Why did LIEbrals become the thin-skinned snowflakes they used to justifiably accuse Conservatives of being. Why are LIEbrals obsessing over “ideological purity” like the CONservatives they used to mock? To understand how this change occurred, we have to first understand why CONservatives were once obsessed with censorship, ideological purity and displays of public morality. The short version is the supporters of dying ideologies will always try to delay the inevitable end through appeals to censorship, increasingly ridiculous displays of ideological fidelity and obsession with purity.

CONservatism entered its terminal phase sometime in the mid 1980s and has been effectively dead since 2006-2008. While there are many reasons for its demise, most come down to some version of the ideology failing to provide its believers and potential recruits what they wanted. In other words, CONservatism failed once it became obvious that the ideology was fundamentally fraudulent and unable to address the real needs for majority of its followers. So why is LIEbralism also failing and why is the speed so much higher than for CONservatism? To better understand this peculiar fact, we have to first talk about what both ideologies are really about. Yes.. neither ideology is what its ardent supporters claim them to be.

The thing is.. CONservatism in the west after WW1 was never about retaining traditional mores and worldviews. It was a logical framework, aka scam, to justify the power of rich people and corporations over everybody else. CONservatives were never interested in preserving traditions or guaranteeing socio-economic stability. Those were just buzzwords they invoked for conning, often willingly, stupid losers with delusions of becoming filthy rich. That is why, among western countries, modern CONservatism was strongest in post-WW2 USA. CONservative support of social issues such as racial apartheid, prayers in schools, anti-abortion stances etc was therefore always about appealing to white trash stupid enough to care about such useless bullshit.

While the last COnservative resurgence (during 1980s) in the west died out in Europe by the late 1990s, it persisted in North America for a few years longer. CONservatism in this country was publicly discredited largely due to a series of spectacular and costly failures during and by the Bush43 administration- from the failed occupation of Iraq to Global Financial Crisis of 2008. But what about the recent resurgence of right-wing parties across Europe- some might wonder. See.. the thing is, right-wing populism and proto-fascism is not CONservatism, even though there is a small degree of ideological overlap. Now let us get back to how CONservatives handled their slow-motion demise during the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.

Some of you might be old enough to remember that, during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a renewed attempt to ban pornography, “violent” video games and push for “traditional” values. They also did other tone-deaf and stupid stuff such as ignore the HIV crisis, tried to to stop the movement for gay rights and censor network TV when everyone was buying satellite TV dishes. By then, all the genies they feared were already out of their metaphorical bottles. CONservatism was increasingly seen as the ideology of stupid, old and out-of-touch losers. It did not help that modern LIEbralism, aka NeoLIEberalism, was now the default ideological choice of rich assholes who wanted to appear “hip”. The many public failures of Bush43 presidency were the final nails in the coffin of CONservatism. That is why Trump was able to defeat every last establishment CONservative in the 2016 republican primary, and with ease.

But what does any of this have to do with the ongoing failure of LIEbralism? As it turns out, a whole fucking lot! The thing is.. LIEbralism, was never about opposing CONservatism or doing any of the other things it pretended to care about. LIEbralism, at it core is the ideological sibling of CONservatism, albeit one that tries to portray itself as more the enlightened among the two. That is why LIEbralism is perfectly fine with everything problematic about CONservatism, except the parts that make them look unenlightened. That is why LIEbrals and corporations will support LGBTQ parades while simultaneously paying their employees starvation wages and denying them healthcare. Similarly LIEbrals love to masturbate to the sound of “woke” labels such as “Latinx” rather than treat real Hispanic people as equal human beings.

This is also why LIEbrals love to celebrate a deeply problematic Neo-LIEbral such as Obama even though he started five more wars in Africa and a couple more in middle-east, was responsible for millions of Hispanics to be deported and millions of black people losing their homes in aftermath of housing bubble. But.. but.. didn’t he pose for photos with a few old black women and children in the Oval Office and give empty inspirational-sounding speeches? See.. LIEbrals differentiate themselves from CONservatives by where they studied, what they wear and eat, how they speak and other superficial stuff. They so because, in every aspect which matters, they are no different from CONservatives. The former just try to be better at scamming people than the latter.

So why, then, did this group who appeared to have prevailed over CONservatives by the mid 2000s get so thin-skinned about “mean people” and “dissenters” so quickly after their supposed victory? Some of you might believe that this had something to do with being the only game in town. The realty is much more complex. As mentioned earlier, LIEbrals and CONservatives are simply two faces of the same group of people and all those “culture wars” were largely for the purposes of distraction and entertainment for the masses. But why did this fake show last for multiple decades? Well.. it comes down to two main reasons. Firstly, for the first 3-4 decades after WW2 the west was the most affluent part of the world and most people who live in societies that seem to be doing OK don’t ask inconvenient questions.

The second reason follows from the first. Societies experiencing continuously rising standards of living and expectations tend to focus on superficial issues and controversies while simultaneously ignoring deeper and more systemic challenges. There is a reason that the post-WW2 american society was dominated by “culture wars” rather than anything deeper such as changing the shitty underlying system. The show went until the combined effects of deindustrialization, neoliberalism and financialization of the economy and society at could no longer be papered over or ignored. But why would that cause the public image of LIEbralism and trust in its institutions to implode much faster than CONservatism?

Well.. it comes down to an undesired, but predictable, result of the collapse of CONservatism. Long story short, after its public collapse in 2006-2008, LIEbralism was the only game left in town. Now LIEbrals could no longer blame their inability to do the ‘right thing’ on resistance from CONservatives. Unfortunately this was also the time when the post-WW2 economic western economic ‘miracle’ started to implode in a very public manner. Turns out that LIEbrals has no real solutions to problems of their own creation other than imposing more austerity, pushing for fiscal CONservatism, spouting bullshit about lifelong education and basically anything other than tackle the problems plaguing most people in their countries. There is a reason why right-wing populist leaders and movements exploded in popularity across western countries after 2010.

The LIEbral reaction to these developments has been highly counterproductive, to say the least. For starters, they doubled and tripled down on empty bullshit such as identity and racial politics, “environmentalism” and celebrity culture aka stuff most people do not even pretend to care about. But what they did next was especially dumb, even by their standards. See.. these idiots had the bright idea that lecturing and trying to shame people into not talking about their real problems was a winner. And they tried really hard to pull the shit off by using their domination of certain institutions to amplify their message, which had the unfortunate (but also predictable) effect of deep-sixing any residual public trust and credibility. The election of Trump in 2016 was the final straw and seems to have broken their mind.

It seems that LIEbrals now firmly believe that nothing short of overt censorship, trying to stifle the speech of their opponents and pretty much anything other than admitting that their ideology was also a scam is the way “forward”. They do not want to believe that the previous state of affairs is dead, discredited and cannot be restored. Since this post is already a bit over 1500 words, this is a good time to wrap it up. Will likely post a followup based on reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?

George Carlin on Environmentalism and Anodyne Corporate Language

November 2, 2019 3 comments

Here are two interesting YT clips by the well-known, and now deceased comedian, George Carlin. While the video quality is pretty mediocre by current standards, the material is extremely good. In the first one he talks about how environmentalism is just a contemporary manifestation of anthropocentric delusions, aka humans wanting to believe that the world exists for them and having some outsize influence on it. In the second one, he goes after how anodyne corporate language and lies has permeated all walks of life in USA.

Clip # 1

Clip # 2

What do you think? Comments?