Search Results

Keyword: ‘What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species’

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 9

September 24, 2014 8 comments

Following up from my previous post in this series, I made the following statement:

A mentally ill murderer who believes that he is god is far more honest and possess significantly larger balls than the pathetic piece of shit who has to hide in the shadow of a socially acceptable belief system and defend his actions through misdirection and sophistry.

Scamming others and oneself through outright lies, misdirections and sophistry is one of the main foundations of all traditional religious and secular belief systems. But how does anything this fucked up become popular in the first place. How do such scam-ridden belief systems gain any amount of social legitimacy? Well, it is easy..

All traditional and secular religions portray themselves as an answer to a problem, even if that problem is non-existent.

A few contemporary examples of emerging ideologies and movements will help you understand what I am talking about. They will also show you what motivates the early adopters and evangelists of any religions or secular ideology.

Let us start with PETA aka People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. While it was initially started to protest some very egregious examples of medical experimentation and abuse of animals, it did not stay that way. As soon as the group got its first wave of new followers, it diversified into other areas such as opposition to factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and animals in entertainment. Personally, I do support the core ideas behind organisations like PETA and have, on numerous occasions, clearly stated my opposition to cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. But if you have spent enough time following their actions, it is clear that the organization is now largely driven by the need for ever-increasing amounts of publicity, money and power.

Let me illustrate that point with a few examples of their actions and behavior within the last decade. You might have, at some point in the last few years, come across a news item about how PETA wants everyone to become vegan or something like that. My question is- What does not eating meat have to do with the prevention of cruelty to animals? Human beings are an omnivorous species, and while we can survive close to either end of the carnivore-vegetarian gradient- it is rather obvious that our physiology works best when we are somewhere in the middle of that gradient. So the real question is- How do you raise and kill animals for meat in a way that minimizes suffering, preferably to levels experienced by the same species in the wild.

As you might have realized, getting people to agree on not abusing animals raised for meat is relatively easy and straightforward. Nor is it especially costly or technology intensive to do so. You just have to support and perhaps legislate for moderate density animal farming as opposed to the high density crap that is supported by large corporations today. So why is PETA more famous for throwing fake blood on fur coats, constantly promoting veganism or killing animals in their pet shelters? And yes, they have rational-sounding reasons for all of those actions. But is it really about preventing cruelty to animals? Could there be a better explanation for the large gap between what they could feasibly achieve and what they actually devote their energies to?

PETA is now a nascent religion and, like all other older religions, is now far more interested in screwing up the lives of other people than trying to solve the problem it was created to solve in the first place.

Their constant obsession with fur coats, promoting veganism and defense of kill-only shelters is about trying to force other people to live as they want others to live. In that respect they are no different from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any flavor of Capitalism or Communism. It is therefore no surprise that their more famous supporters sound more like evangelists on a moral crusade than rational people trying to find a better solution. Now let us turn our attention to another nascent religion aka the ‘religion of catastrophic man-made global climate change’ which used to known as the ‘religion of catastrophic man-made global warming’.

While I have written a couple of posts, including this one, about my thoughts on that subject- they tackled the more technical issues involved in modeling complex interactive systems and understanding the mechanism behind previous instances of dramatic climate change. But as many of you have come to realize, for some time, all of that talk about man-made climate change is not really about preventing climate change. It is really about maintaining power, specifically the primacy of a rapidly aging and sclerotic white west in the face of sustained global increases in the quality of life.

At their core, movements centered around “preventing climate-change” or any similar environmentalist bullshit are about trying to prevent non-white populations from enjoying a higher standard of living.

For a century or so (approximately 1850-1950) only the west (and predominantly white people) enjoyed a rapidly increasing standard of living. At that time, they believed that they alone were genetically capable of developing and using science and technology. But reality has a way to spoil delusions and the post 1950 era saw a diffusion and uptake of science and technology among non-white populations who were considered to be generically incapable of doing so. Now we live in a world where the level of scientific understanding and technological competence is rather similar throughout the world. Today most technology intensive manufacturing occurs in East Asia, a lot of chemical manufacturing and processing occurs in places like India and countries like Brazil make commercially viable airliners. Did I mention relatively inexpensive and successful interplanetary probes to Mars?

To put it another way, being white is just not what it used to be and the process is not reversible.

The support for movements to ‘reduce climate change’ should therefore be seen as a last-ditch effort to sabotage the development of non-white countries. And here is the real problem with that approach- it is not working! Countries like China, India and pretty much all other non-white countries can both see through this charade and have the means to tell the rapidly aging and pathetic predominantly white countries to fuck themselves.

So why do I call it the ‘religion of catastrophic man-made global climate change’ rather than a conspiracy to sabotage predominantly non-white countries. I am certainly not the first person to point out the religious nature of belief in man-made catastrophic global climate change. Michael Crichton said something very similar a few year ago. But his main focus on how it resembled the belief system of traditional and secular religions. He did not talk much about how the motivations of prophets, leaders and priests of this new religion are almost identical to their counterparts from more traditional faiths.

So let us talk about what motivates the prophets, leaders and priests of this new faith. Well.. like their counterparts from older faiths, they are driven by the need for power- specifically the power to impoverish, abuse and kill other people. As with all older religions, there is a massive gap between the preaching and actual behavior of these prophets, leaders and priests. Most live in great material luxury and gleefully indulge in all the “sins” they rant and warn others about. No rich white supporter of global warming is ever going to give up any of the fossil-fuel enabled utilities and capabilities they warn non-whites about, except perhaps for photo opportunities.

Another important characteristic of religions, also seen in global warming, is the presence of a significant number of useful idiots who will enthusiastically follow the teachings of their duplicitous leaders. We have all come across a few ‘true believers’ who firmly believe in and obsess about man-made climate change. So what motivates them? Once again, and as I have said before, it is about providing them a rational to abuse other people- even though most of them do not yet have that power. Religions, you see, are a lot like ponzi schemes in that every person who joins it does so to get up to the next level and abuse those below them.

In the next part of this post, I will try to focus on secular religions such as feminism (including the white-knight phenomena) and all those poor and stupid southern whites who enjoy being shat on by rich white people as long as they get to fuck over a few black people. And yes, those two religions are connected.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 8

August 18, 2014 38 comments

As I mentioned in my previous post of this series – an open license to rob, abuse, torture and murder all those “others” is an essential and integral part of all successful organized religions and ideologies. Let me explain that concept with a simple example.

Why does Islam, today, have more followers than Buddhism? Now this question assumes that you believe that Buddhism is a religion, which some of its believers might find objectionable. But the main question still stands- what makes a religion like Islam more attractive to average dumbfucks than any given school of Buddhism? In my opinion- it comes down to one particular promise that the former offers which the later does not. Well.. Islam officially, and functionally, sanctions the robbery, abuse, torture and murder of “unbelievers”. Buddhism merely sanctions looking down on those “unbelievers”.

One offers the promise of personal enrichment through the guiltless looting, abuse and murder of “others”- while the other merely allows its believers to point and snicker at those pesky “others”.

It is important to note that mainstream flavors of pre-enlightenment era Christianity were as covetous, regressive and brutal as Islam appears today. If you do not believe that statement, I suggest that you read up on the many and very bloody Catholic-Protestant wars waged in the 16th century Europe. I should also point out that Christian doctrine was used to support and justify the genocide of many millions in the Americas during the age of “discovery”. Even 20th century wars such as WW1 and WW2 used religion-based concepts (most notably nationalism) to motivate simpletons into sacrificing their lives by the millions for causes that had nothing to do with any improvement of their own lives.

Capitalism, Communism and other secular organized ideologies are no different. Do you really think that all those who imprisoned, tortured and killed millions of others on the “orders” Stalin and Mao did so because they believed in the principles of the Stalinist or Maoist flavor of Communism? No! They just did it because they wanted to! The belief systems, books and official orders were merely a guilt-absolving justification to do what they always wanted- but never had the balls to do on their own accord. Organized religion and ideologies are about providing a sophistic and plausible sounding justification for acting like a total sociopath but without having to accept any personal responsibility or culpability for their actions.

The guilt-transference mechanism of an organized religion or ideology allows its followers to kill in its name as their day job, then go home to their families in the evening and act as if they did nothing unusual or wrong.

Now imagine what would happen if you overwhelmed and subjugated a true believer and then asked them to account for their past actions. For starters, almost every single will claim innocence. Some will tell you that they were acting in accordance with the dictates of some god, prophet or leader who is almost always conveniently unavailable or dead. Others might claim that they were following the most recent edition of some ancient “holy” book of questionable authorship and full of editing and continuity errors. Now imagine how those very same people would react if a person robbed, abused, tortured and murdered scores of other people on the basis of voices in his head, third person accounts of hallucinations and the contents of old comic books. So, what is the real difference between a mentally ill murderer and a person who kills in the name of an organized religion and ideology.?

A mentally ill murderer who believes that he is god is far more honest and possess significantly larger balls than the pathetic piece of shit who has to hide in the shadow of a socially acceptable belief system and defend his actions through misdirection and sophistry.

I was initially going to devote this post to a discussion about the more insidious organized secular religions (nationalism, capitalism, feminism) of our era- but felt it was necessary to first shine some more light on the original dirty secret underlying all organized belief systems. You will therefore have to wait for the next post in this series to read about my thoughts on contemporary secular religions.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 7

August 17, 2014 12 comments

Towards the end of the previous post in this series, I had asked a bunch of questions about why seemingly diverse belief systems were so functionally similar.

Why are they so devoted to the creation and enforcement of arbitrary rules, regulations, mores and rituals? Why are they so devoted to creating very elaborate fairy tales, explanations and justifications for their supposed “authority”? Why are they so interested in encouraging conformity and unquestioning hierarchic obedience? Why are they so interested in destroying the individuality and personal happiness of their members? And why don’t they tackle real problems or make the lives of their followers materially better?

But perhaps the even more important question is-

What kind of person would willingly believe, defend and enforce such systems of belief? And why?

As you will soon see, the answer to these questions is intimately linked to the existence of all organized religious and secular belief systems. The answer will also allow me to elaborate on a concept found in some of my previous posts- aka the “useful idiot” class. So, who are these ‘individuals’ that make up this class? How numerous are they and what are the real driving forces behind their apparently strong beliefs, even if holding those beliefs results in them acting against their best interests?

I am now going to dissect two contemporary secular proto-religions to help you comprehend the defining characteristics of the “useful idiot” class. Let us start with HBD aka Human BioDiversity aka racial realism aka the latest version to put a rational face on racism. In case you wondering, the feminine equivalent of this belief is known as Feminism- and I will tackle it a bit later on in this post- or the next.

So why are some people interested in promoting the belief that one group of people are somehow ‘better’ or ‘more deserving’ than another group. I mean, would we be having this discussion if their claims were actually true. To put it another way- Have you heard of Steve Sailer or Mencius Moldbug types write an endless stream of posts supporting the “revolutionary” idea that the earth is spherical (an oblate spheroid, to be more precise). Why do we not have self-styled “revolutionary” authors writing endless posts that supposedly provide yet more evidence that fire is hot and ice is cold. The answer is quite simple- the experimental evidence that support some ideas is so overwhelming that it is basically impossible to make the contrary case. Now this does not imply that all minority ideas are wrong- as we know that most people once believed that the earth was flat and epidemics of infectious diseases were manifestations of divine wrath. But in both cases, experimental evidence almost always supported what would later prove to the correct explanations.

Does that hold for HBD? and more importantly- why is there is such a large gap between the claims of HBD promoters and reality? and what does that tell us about the motivations of those who believe in it?

Let me explain.. The absolute majority of those who promote or believe in HBD are mediocre to less-than-mediocre white men. I cannot resist pointing out the irony of HBD promoters like Sailer panhandling on their HBD-promoting websites or writing paid articles for groups that want to promote those ideas. Why would a white man with a ‘high IQ’ have to panhandle on his website. Then there is the question of whether any of these ‘high IQ’ white men have achieved anything in their lives beyond writing make-believe articles on white racial supremacy. If not, why not? Why is a ‘high IQ’ liberal race realist like Robert Lindsay always on the cusp of destitution? Why does RooshV have to go to poverty-stricken areas of Ukraine to find “traditional” women? Why does Matt Forney have to go to the Philippines to find “feminine” women?

The pathetic lives of, and lack of achievements shown by, the vast majority of whites are in stark contrast to their exorbitant claims of innate racial superiority.

The answer to this apparent dissonance lies at the heart of organized religious and secular belief systems. To put it simply- organized belief systems prey on the insecurities of people who can appreciate their own inadequacies but lack any ability to overcome or rise above them. The belief that ALL whites are innately superior to other races is comforting to all those mediocre to less-than-mediocre whites (the absolute majority of whites) who know, but will never publicly acknowledge, that they are sad and pathetic losers. HBD is therefore best seen as a bunch of fairly tales or ancestral myths that makes listeners feel better about themselves.

But why are the fairy tales and ancestral myths of HBD so problematic? What harm can come from reading comic books, performing cosplay or LARPing? Well.. the big difference between fantasy role-playing games and HBD (or any other organized ideology) is that those who engage in the former know that their make-believe world is not real. They do not write laws and regulations to run real-life societies based on the contents of comic books and role-playing game guides. In contrast to that, HBD believers and promoters want to run entire societies on the basis of their own special collection of bullshit myths. In that respect, HBD is no different from political Christianity, Islam, Capitalism or Communism.

Like any other organized religion, those who espouse HBD can be divided into two categories- a small number of leaders and a multitude of followers. Now it is obvious to almost anybody that the opinion leaders of HBD are in it for fame, money, ego and perhaps power. But what about the followers? What do they gain from it? Well.. as I said before, the devout followers of all organized ideologies are usually barely average to less-than-average morons with almost no independent sense of self or personal identity. Movements such as organized religions and ideologies give them a powerful if totally fabricated personal identity. But that is not all.

Adopting a fabricated personal identity allows them to hurt more vulnerable people and feel alive, while outsourcing their conscience and better judgement to some priest, leader, prophet or book. Basically, it allows them to be a full-blown sociopath without talking personal responsibility for their actions.

That is why a significant minority of humans can enthusiastically rob, abuse, torture or murder other human beings in the name of some leader, prophet, book or god. That is also why the zealous and devout members of belief systems as diverse as Christianity, Islam, Capitalism and Communism resemble each other so much. The true believers of all organized ideologies tend to posses average to below-average intelligence and derive most of their personal identity from a belief system rooted in one particular set of adult fairy tales. It is also important to understand that an open license to rob, abuse, torture or murder “others” is an essential and integral part of all successful organized religions and ideologies.

In the next part of this series, I will discuss how all of this applies to other organized secular ideologies such as Feminism.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 6

August 13, 2014 10 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made the point that all organized ideologies (religious and secular) are based on a rather peculiar and seemingly universal human need.

All religions and popular ideologies are about rationalizing and sanctifying the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of those labelled as “others”.

But why do most humans require some pseudo-rational explanation and sanctification for doing what they always wanted to do. Compare and contrast this urge to other ones like the urges to eat and drink. Why do we not construct elaborate legends, explanations and rituals to explain and justify our urge to eat when we are hungry or drink when we are thirsty? Why do we not require “holy” men and “prophets” to justify the sexual desire evoked by a young and attractive woman?

So why humans require ideology to justify the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of “others”?

An other way of asking this question is- Why not just abuse, rob, murder and enslave others because you felt like it? I should also point out one more odd facet of this behavior. Humans do not seem to require religious justification and sanctification for violent (but normal behaviors) such as hunting animals for food or killing dangerous animals. Nor do they require such justification and sanctification for killing other human beings during the course of highly localized conflicts where the issues they are fighting over are highly personal in nature.

Then there is the question of whether abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of “others” is always associated with religious-type beliefs. Well, let us answer this question by having a look at the religious-type beliefs of hunter-gatherers. You might have noticed that almost all the religious beliefs of hunter-gatherer are about personal connection with “other worlds”, “forces of nature” or some version of a “life force”. While different aspects of this set of beliefs have their own names such as Animism, Panentheism, Shamanism and Totemism- it clear that they are centered around individual and personal spiritual experience.

Now contrast this to traditional religions, aka the organized belief systems that came into being with the advent of agriculture and the first kingdoms. Let me frame that question another way- What are traditional religions about? Let us start by asking that question about old-timey Judaism. Is it really spirituality? Well, if you look at history- the answer is a big NO. Old-timey Judaism is basically a set of largely arbitrary rules, regulations and the accompanying legalisms that are meant to enrich a few at the cost of the majority of its believers. Christianity is and was no different. After an initial run of perhaps one hundred years where it did try to recreate the individual and personal spiritual experience of pre-agricultural religions, it quickly became old-timey Judaism-lite. This ossification and transformation was almost complete by the time it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Islam has, from its inception, been largely about abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of those pesky “others”.

Nor is this tendency restricted to monotheistic religions. Hinduism, in all its forms, is nothing more than a systems of laws, regulations and customs about caste. Yes, you heard that right- Hinduism contains (and offers) nothing more than arbitrary rules, regulations and some fairy tales. While it makes tall claims to morality and spirituality, it practitioners display a level of materialism, greed and pettiness that is unmatched by any group except east-asians. Let us now turn our attention to the organized religious beliefs of east-asians. While I could write a lot about this subject, it is very easy to summarize their core beliefs. All major and most minor east-asian religious-type belief systems are about rituals, rules, regulations, mores, encouraging unquestioning obedience to “authority” and destroying the individuality and personal happiness of its members.

So why are the core beliefs and modus operandi of major religious (and secular) belief systems so similar? Why are they so devoted to the creation and enforcement of arbitrary rules, regulations, mores and rituals? Why are they so devoted to creating very elaborate fairy tales, explanations and justifications for their supposed “authority”? Why are they so interested in preventing anything approaching an individual and personal spiritual experience among their followers? Why are they so interested in encouraging conformity and unquestioning hierarchic obedience? Why are they so interested in destroying the individuality and personal happiness of their members? And why don’t these belief systems tackle real problems or make the lives of their followers materially better?

I have partially answered the last question in a fairly specific context in one of my earlier posts. The next post in this series will, among other things, discuss a more generalized version of that explanation.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 5

August 10, 2014 22 comments

In the previous post of this series, I put forth an idea on what might be the real factor underlying religious zealotry.

They just want an excuse to screw over somebody else while simultaneously feeling righteous about doing it.

I have also hinted at this idea in one of my older standalone post. Note that this rationale is not unique to traditional religions and can be seen among ardent followers of secular religions such as communism and capitalism- well, pretty much every single ideology. Here are a few examples of what I am talking about..

Many devout Christians believe in concepts like heaven and hell, but have you ever met somebody with any evidence of their existence? Isn’t it odd that a drug like DMT provides a far more realistic spiritual experience than a lifetime of studying the bible and praying to an entity nobody in their right mind has ever seen? Why was the belief of people in a christian god almost always rewarded with drudgery, poverty, disease and incessant wars? But far more importantly, was everybody always too stupid to realize that there was no god? And why are evangelicals who claim personal communication with god so preachy about the sexual lives and behaviors of other people while indulging in those very same behaviors themselves? Why are overtly devout Christians not interested in solving problems that might actually improve the lives of their fellow human beings? Why devote so much mental energy to something that has never provided any material benefit?

Now let us turn to Islam. Isn’t it odd that so many of its followers obsess about supposed insults to their prophet even when doing so has no positive material effects on their pathetic lives? Does their beliefs put more (and better) food on their table? What about reducing infant mortality and morbidity? Does their god put indoor plumbing in the houses of believers? Does he provide them with electric power, air conditioners and HDTVs? Does fidelity to that belief system result in the faithful getting free high-end sports cars and SUVS? Did their god or prophet even instruct them to purify drinking water by boiling it? Isn’t it therefore a bit odd that so many of the believers of that belief system are willing defend the “honor” of an entity who has not manifested himself- let alone benefited his vocal followers to the extent of even a single slice of pizza?

Hinduism is no better. Has belief in any part of Hinduism resulted in the spontaneous appearance of even a single morsel of edible food. Has belief in any part of Hinduism improved the quality of drinking water, general sanitation or somehow reduced the spread of any infectious diseases? Has it improved the general health, life expectancy or life quality of its believers? Has belief in any part of the caste system improved the lives of its believers? Is there anything in Hinduism beyond stupid rules about caste, ritual pollution and some bullshit stories. I should point out that other religions are no better in that respect. Isn’t it odd that most followers of this supposedly spiritual religion are among the most greedy, deceptive and selfish assholes you will ever have the misfortune of meeting. Then there is the peculiar problem of how a mostly illiterate people can maintain fidelity to a religion whose texts were and are still mostly unavailable or nonexistent.

Secular religions are no different. How many people who defend capitalism (especially financialism) have actually benefited from it pre-WW2 pure form? Note the choice of words “actually benefited from it” as opposed to “barely managed to survived under it”. What about libertarianism? Have you seen real life examples of the scenarios described in Ayn Rand’s fairy tales? The same holds for state communism- though to a lesser degree as it did actually benefit (at least initially) most of those who lived under it. My point is that followers of secular religions display the same outcome blindness as those who believe in traditional regions.

But why are the vast majority of devout followers of any religion, traditional or secular, so blind to the outcome of their beliefs? Why are they so persistent in their beliefs- especially in the complete absence of validation of those beliefs. Why would they willingly and enthusiastically structure their lives around beliefs that offer no measurable utility? Even a normal 8-year old child understands that people who habitually renege on their end of the deal are untrustworthy. Yet most adults exhibit great certainty about the existence of an invisible all-powerful friend who has never made a single slice of pizza materialize before them. One possibility is that most adults are stupider than an average 8-year old. It is also possible that belief in god, religion and ideology is a defense mechanism against nihilism and the fear of uncertainty. However neither of the previous two explanations account for the central, and most important, feature of all traditional and secular religions.

The one common feature of all religions, traditional or secular, is unrelated to belief. It is about what they seek to rationalize and justify. All religions and popular ideologies are about rationalizing and sanctifying the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of others. Initially they seek to do that to those who don’t believe in their fairy tales. However sooner or later, they run out of unbelievers and turn on themselves and start persecuting their less-faithful members. That is the real reason why religions that gain followers (such as islam, capitalism) become more extreme as they do so.

Will write more about this connection in the upcoming part of the series.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 4

August 2, 2014 34 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made an observation about the fundamental precondition necessary for most humans to take abuse from another human.

Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.

Many readers might not like the idea that most (if not all) supposedly complex and ‘rational’ human behaviors arise from such an odd thought process. Moreover, the very suggestion that a lot of human behavior and social mores are driven by such ‘un-noble’ considerations will offend many more. But the unintuitiveness or offensiveness of an idea or concept does not make it untrue. No amount of wishful thinking and sophistry can alter the reality of the earth not being the center of the universe. Similarly quantum mechanics is not particularly intuitive or satisfying to us, but is extremely relevant to understanding semiconductivity. My point is that an idea or concept must be judged by its ability to explain a phenomena, make verifiable predictions AND stand up to scrutiny. Does the concept proposed at the beginning of this post fulfill those criteria? Well, let us see..

As you might recall, one of the questions posed in my previous post concerned the relative lack of sexual activity in the lives of most chronically single women in developed countries. While there are many popular sophistic and plausible sounding explanations (or even repudiations) for this phenomena, it is clear that chronically single women are not having anywhere near the amount of the sex they want to have and, more importantly, could be having. Now there are those of you who might say that this validates some bullshit “evo-pysch” mumbo-jumbo about women desiring only “alpha” guys. But desiring is not the same as having it and a lot of men fantasize about young attractive women when they are having sex with their old wrinkly wives. Clearly the converse is feasible as demonstrated by female prostitution.

So why would an average looking woman make herself sexually unavailable when a much better looking woman would have quality sex with almost any man for a reasonable hourly rate.

Some of you might attribute this behavior to their need of maintaining personal ego, social image etc- and there is something to be said about that. But such factors can account for only a minority of rejections as most men are not very ugly, very short or very poor. Clearly there is much more to this behavior than maintaining their own social status and here is a clue- most woman are a bit too enthusiastic about criminalizing paid sex. The rather strong urge among women to criminalize paid sex has been traditionally interpreted as a response to competition. To put it another way, the conventional narrative suggests that women see sex workers as competition for the overpriced services they themselves offer- like “established” cab companies protesting about non-traditional rideshare services such as Uber. But is that really the case?

The argument that paid sex is real competition only holds true if the vast majority of women in that society are in long-term marriages or similar long-term relationships. But that has not been the case in most developed countries for the last three to four decades. To rephrase it- paid sex is not especially competitive with short-term or casual sexual relationships, if they are readily available. But it is clear that such short-term relationships are not available to most men- and this poses an interesting question.

Why would a person want to disrupt an event they do not want to participate in, especially if it does not affect their material interests- one way or the other.

A better understanding of this irrational behavior can be obtained by looking at the issue of religious fundamentalism- especially as it applies to zealots who try to enforce their own standards on those who might not share the former’s bizarre beliefs. Take the issue or religious taboos against certain kinds of food (pork, beef etc) or drink (alcohol, coffee, tea etc). Have you ever wondered why most muslims are so offended by others eating pork, or most hindus offended by those who enjoy eating beef, or muslims condemning those who drink alcohol or observant mormons doing the same for coffee and tea? What is going on? While sophists will try to make up “facts” to justify such arbitrary beliefs, it is clear that eating pork or beef is not associated with any measurable negative effects. The same holds for the moderate consumption of alcohol or caffeinated drinks. But why are religious zealots so resistant to reason? Here is an idea..

They just want an excuse to screw over somebody else while simultaneously feeling righteous about doing it.

It comes down to making oneself feel powerful by abusing those you can without stressing your cognitive dissonance. In the upcoming part of this series, I shall write more about the very strong connection between the need to believe in organised religion and desire to abuse or hurt other people- even if doing so results in no material gain.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 3

July 13, 2014 42 comments

In the previous part of this series, I briefly talked about my theory about why married women almost universally seem to lose interest in sex with their husband. I also made the observation that this particular behavior is conditional to the options of the man in the relationship, especially his ability to leave it. But why would that be so? Why does the ability of a man to leave a relationship easily make it significantly harder for the woman to deny him frequent sex? Let me put that question in another way- why does the mere presence of an ‘out’ option make for the guy have such a drastic effect on the willingness of the woman to have sex with him? Clearly, the ‘out’ option does not add inches to his height or dick, muscle mass to his body or make him more handsome. So what is going on?

Many people, especially those who subscribe to the solipsistic mumbo-jumbo of evolutionary psychology, might say that a man who can easily leave a relationship is demonstrating his higher ‘status’ or “fitness”. But does reality support that belief? Who is more likely to be in a sexless marriage or relationship – a supposedly high status and financially secure guy or someone who plays drums in some semi-famous cover band? How can C- and D-grade celebrities pull pussy of a quality that staid multi-millionaires can only dream of? Why don’t large financial net worths make women wet and horny?

Some sophists might say that fame and celebrity are far more ancient “evolutionary” switches for female horniness than money or education. But there is a big problem with this assertion. Even intelligent and educated women do not marry rich and/or “highly educated” men because of any real physical or emotional attraction. All such marriages are, and have always been, shams based in the need for social approval and financial comfort for the woman. Remember that a woman married to a doctor or manager will cheat on him with a C- grade celebrity, but one in a relationship with a C-grade celebrity will never cheat on him with a doctor or manager.

While there are many possible explanations, such as this one, for why a minor celebrity can pull far more pussy than a billionaire- we are still left with one important but only partially answered question. Why do married women eventually go to great lengths for not having sex with their husbands- especially if he is not ugly, poor or otherwise downright repulsive?

A more complete answer to that question can be found by looking at a similar category of women- the ones who are chronically single and barely having sex.

One of the major falsehoods promoted by game blogs is the idea that almost all non-ugly and chronically single women are having lots of sex. While a minority of non-ugly and chronically single women do indeed have busy sex lives, the majority do not. Now, I am not claiming that the majority of such women are asexual or abstinent and there is every reason to believe that they have occasional booty calls and short-term flings. But none of this occasional sexual activity remotely approaches what they could have in an average non-marital relationship.

So what is stopping them from having such relationships? After all we live in the age where women have well-paying jobs, access to effective contraception and easy treatment of STDs- not to mention a much lower incidence of such diseases. Clearly, these women do not have to overcome real obstacles or face major risks to enter into such relationships- and yet they don’t. But why not? and what does any of this have to do with why married women have progressively less frequent sex with their husbands. Well.. it is connected, but understanding that connection requires you to ask questions that most would never even consider in the first place.

Would chronically single women spend most of their time on the sexual sidelines if they knew that their lack of participation had no negative effect on the sexual lives of men?

While there is no shortage of morons spouting some bullshit about women having little intrinsic sexual desire, how they want to concentrate on their careers or how modern dating is especially risky and full of frauds- a lot of these “common sense” bullshit explanations just does not add up. Let us first consider the claim that women have little intrinsic sexual desire. While that explanation may seem plausible at first, women buy too many romance novels and are a bit too willing to have sex with famous/good-looking men for that to be true. While female sexual desire is not a mirror image of its male equivalent, there is no doubt that it is similarly powerful.

The explanation that women are increasingly career minded is also based in bullshit since most human beings (men and women) work to live. Only the retarded and autistic minority (mostly “clever” men) live to work. Another plausible sounding explanation requires us to believe that “modern” dating is somehow significantly more riskier than it was in the past. However almost every measure of such risk based on real data suggest that people in the past were not much nicer, or much worse, than those alive today.

So what is really going on? Why would a significant minority of mediocre women choose to hang on the sexual sidelines? What do they gain from such behavior and how could it be enough to compensate for the obvious loss?

Well.. it comes down to ego, but not quite in the way most of you understand it. Some of you might think that rejecting men might be a psychological defense mechanism used by mediocre women to deny their own mediocrity. While there might be some truth to the idea that women are more status-obsessed and status-sensitive than men, repeatedly torpedoing your own sex life would be a really odd and expensive way to raise self-perceived status. Moreover, being single past a certain age (say.. 30) actually reduces their status within their peer group. But there is another psychological mechanism that can explain this behavior.

Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.

Confused.. here are is an example. Have you wondered why poverty-stricken whites in the american south were and are so willing and eager to abuse poverty-stricken blacks on behalf of their rich white masters? If you think about it rationally, the poverty-stricken white person does not experience any material gain from abusing the poverty-stricken black person. But they do gain in a non-material way. Specifically, the ability to freely abuse poverty-stricken blacks allows them to scratch their insatiable human itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others. Similarly people who belong to the lower castes in India experience great pleasure from abusing those of even lower castes. In both of the above mentioned examples, actively working against your best interests is preferred over working for it as long as the former comes with an ability to abuse even more desperate and needy people.

Will write more about this particular issue in the next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 2

June 25, 2014 23 comments

Towards the end of my previous post in this series, I made a claim/observation about the prime motivation behind most human behavior.

It is as if most human beings are actively driven a unscratchable itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others even if they stand to gain very little from it.

While I had previously suggested that certain behaviors are driven by this urge- it was the first time I said that it pervaded every facet of human behavior/thought including their products such as popular belief systems, schemes of interpersonal interactions and world-views. Now that I have let the proverbial cat out of its bag, let us see if we can apply this insight to better understand some common, but perplexing, human behaviors.

The behavior of women towards men, and other women, is a good place to start- largely because previous theories about what motivates them to behave the way they do are based on unchallenged speculation. Historically the bizarre and highly adversarial behavior of women towards men, including those who apparently care about them, has been blamed on everything from brain size, hormones and socialization. However it is clear that all of those explanations are based in outright bullshit and plausible-sounding lies.

For example, there is no evidence that women are intellectually inferior to men or in any way less mentally developed than men. Indeed, the converse is often true. Therefore explanations about the behavior of women based on their inability to comprehend the ‘big picture’ are utter bullshit. The ‘hormonal’ explanation is basically an updated version of the old brain size/ intellectual capacity explanation. It requires you to believe that periodic hormonal shifts in women somehow result in long-term and progressive mental incapacitation as opposed to small short-term mood fluctuations. The ‘socialization’ explanation is based on the idea that spending time around and interacting with other women makes them adversarial towards men and other women. I will let the reader think through the irrationality of that previous sentence.

The systemically adversarial behavior of women towards men (including the ones they profess/ professed to love) cannot be explained through any popular explanation for such behavior.

Then there are those who believe that such behavior can be explained by a sophistic pseudoscience known as evolutionary psychology. But can it really do that? Is a “discipline” based in sophistic modeling of facts to create fictitious correlations any better than astrology? While I can certainly believe that women might be more horny at some points in their menstrual cycle than others, can we really extend that concept to decisions that have long-term impacts – especially when there is considerable uncertainty about the final outcome? My point is, there is a huge difference between a woman being extra flirty mid-cycle and her using complicated but supposedly unconscious mental calculus to determine the order in which she will have sex with a bunch of guys- some of whom she has not even met yet.

And this brings us to my general theory about the motivation for most human behavior.

As you might have noticed, the previous theories about the reasons underlying the adversarial behavior of women towards men have a few common elements. All of them try to portray women as creatures at the mercy of external circumstances, forces or greater currents of history. It is supposedly always someone or something else’s fault! It is as if they are not as sentient as other human beings. But why do most men want to believe that? Well.. because the alternative is that such behavior is largely endogenous and completely intentional.

So how does applying my idea to real life examples of such behavior look like? Does it provide a better and more complete explanation of observations?

Let us start by talking about the almost universal and progressive decline in sexual activity seen in long-term relationships. Is it really inevitable or “natural”? I am not suggesting that having sex with someone after you have had sex with them for the last decade is as going to be as exciting as it was in the first few weeks of the relationship. However, it also clear that in most long-term heterosexual relationships the amount of sexual contact keeps on dropping to a point where people have sex once or twice a month just to make themselves believe that they are still in a real relationship. Moreover, this drop in the frequency of sexual activity is linked to duration of the relationship rather than the age of the individuals in the couple implying that hormones and aging are not the major factor behind this decline. Furthermore, couples in non-legally binding relationships do not experience the same drop in the frequency of sexual activity as those in marriages.

Now.. most people will tell you that such a decline is due to things like boredom, familiarity, other stresses in life, children etc. But is that true? If all of those factors were the real reasons behind this drop, they would also have a similar effect on the frequency of masturbation. But they don’t! The frequency of masturbation, especially among males, remains fairly constant- especially in comparison to the drop in sexual activity with their female “partner”. Similarly the frequency of sex between gay men in long-term relationships does not exhibit the same sort of precipitous drop as that seen in heterosexual relationships. The precipitous drop in the frequency of sexual activity in heterosexual relationships can therefore be isolated to women. It is either that or men prefer masturbation to a readily available and half-decent blowjob or fuck.

So what might cause women to lose interest in sex? or do they even lose interest in the first place? Well.. based on the number of 30-40 something women who buy vibrators, read romance novels, cheat on their spouses or divorce them and then slut around- it is clear that female desire remains pretty constant even if its expression with their “partners” is greatly reduced. So why would a woman prefer to use a vibrator or slut around with somebody else rather than have sex with her long-term boyfriend or husband. I mean.. using sex toys and cheating is not even mutually incompatible with having frequent sex with the long-term boyfriend or husband in question. So what can best explain this behavior?

In my opinion, a strong basic desire to hurt and abuse the boyfriend or husband for the sake of watching him suffer is the best fit for what is observed. It is not about profiting from inflicting misery on others. It is about enjoying and feeling alive from inflicting misery on others.

Which brings us the next question. Why don’t women pull that same crap in short-term relationships or early in a long-term relationship? Well.. it is about feasibility. Denying sex in short-term relationships or early in long-term relationships will almost certainly make the relationship fall apart. That is also why such behavior is less common or intense in non-legally binding relationships. Any situation where the guy can, or will, walk out on the woman reduces the probability that she will deny sex.

The denial of sex in a relationship which the guy cannot easily abandon is intentional. We can argue about whether such behavior is logical and/or rational, but make no mistake- it is totally intentional.

Will explain my idea with more common examples in future posts.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 1

June 14, 2014 20 comments

It is no secret that my views on human beings as a species have been pretty negative for a long time. I have also made it clear, on at least one previous occasion, that my views are not the result of disappointment and therefore are not typically misanthropic. I tend to see things as they are, rather than as they are supposed or expected to be. As regular readers also know, more than a few of my previous posts have been about the apparent inconsistencies in widely held views about the human mind and observed human behaviors. In a few of those posts, I have explicitly suggested that most human beings are largely driven by the desire to cheat, screw over, damage, hurt and kill others- even if does not confer any measurable advantage to them. While I have my own theories on what drives this almost uniquely human urge, the current post will talk about another aspect of this phenomena- its ubiquity. I will also talk a bit about why this urge will almost inevitably result in human extinction.

Let us start with a recent news-piece about how officials in the Pyrenees are considering how to curb the sexual appetite of Pyros the bear to give his rivals a chance to mate. This news-piece also reminded me of another similar one from a few months ago- Danish zoo that killed Marius the giraffe puts down four lions. While reading both of them makes you wonder about the world view and belief systems of the “officials” in question, almost nobody seems to be asking the most important question- How is interference in the lives of wild animals based on questionable beliefs rational? As you will soon see, the generalized form of this question is intimately connected to what I am going to talk about in the rest of this post.

But before we go any further, let us first be clear about my views on the treatment of animals. While I am against cruelty towards animals, I am not against eating meat or killing animals that are (directly or indirectly) dangerous to human beings. Though I am against the horrible conditions prevalent in the factory farming of animals- especially in north america, I am not against the concept of raising and killing animals for food, as long as it is done in a way that causes minimal pain and suffering to the animals in question. Nor am I against the hunting animals, as long as it is for obtaining food or protecting oneself.

And this brings me to another facet of the problematic relationship between humans and other animals. Large-scale trophy hunting of animals, especially large mammals, was once a very popular pursuit. It reached its peak in the 1840-1914 time period and was responsible for the near extinction of many large mammalian species. Curiously, neither food nor security was the main reason behind such large-scale trophy hunting. So what was it about? Some might say that hunting large animals is about displaying masculine prowess. While that was partially true in the era before long-ranged rifled guns became commonplace, it is really hard to argue that the ability to safely kill an animal from 200 meters with an accurate rifle is somehow linked to masculine prowess. The same questions could also be asked about commercial whaling or clubbing seals by the tens of thousands for fur. So what was all this large-scale animal killing really about? Could it be the act of killing others for no rational reason is more pleasurable than is commonly understood?

Let us now turn our attention to pets. Why do humans have pets? Why do people constantly try to anthropomorphize their pets? Now some of you might say that most humans do infact care about other animals, especially those species that are kept as pets. But is that really true? If that were true why do humans kill so many of the pet animals who cannot find a human owner? Is mass killing of animal pets that cannot find human owners really about their welfare, or is it about something else? And why do humans spend that much time, money and effort to castrate pets, feed them, anthropomorphize them and then try to make them live like humans than the animals they are? On a related note, why were circus acts with animals once so popular? What is the entertainment value of watching lions, tiger and elephants jump through hoops or sit on tables? Why do people go to see animal trick shows at places like Sea World? What about zoos? What pleasure do humans derive from creating subservient animals and then observing their subservience?

Moving on to how human beings behave towards each other.. Why was overt slavery so common in previous eras, even if the slave-owners could not make a worthwhile financial profit from the labors of their slaves? Why go through the trouble of obtaining and abusing people as slaves when the same amount of work could be willingly and enthusiastically done by economically marginalized members of your own group. Why use slaves when there was no shortage of poor and desperate people? Why did rich people of previous eras prefer to have slaves over poorly paid employees? What was the real distinction between slaves and poor people? Does this have anything to do with how humans interact with animals? Could it be that human enjoy having , using, abusing others as slaves rather than taking the most rational way out and hiring people to do a given job?

Then there is the question of money, or more specifically why some people accumulate money beyond any practical ability to spend ever spend it. In a previous series of posts, I had put forth the idea that a few people accumulate money to impoverish everyone else than make their own lives better. Do you really think billionaires want to uplift social morality, educational standards or support LIEbertarian policies because they want to help their “fellow” human beings? Maybe making lost of money is not about showing others that you are better than them. Maybe it is really about willful destruction of the lives of people they do not even know in person. Or consider all institutional and corporate hierarchies. What if they are really about abusing and screwing other others rather than anything related to the supposed function of those institutions? What if bureaucracy is not really about making institutions work, but creating the groundwork for finding creative ways to fuck over other people- especially those you don’t even know. And why are priests of all religions more concerned with disrupting the sexual lives of others than their so-called “god” or public welfare?

The way women see, interact with and behave towards men is another example of this pattern. Why are so many fat white suburban women concerned about prostitution? Why do they want men to jump through all sorts of hoops for a slim chance of having sex with mediocre women? Why are they so concerned about misogyny? Why do ugly middle-aged hags want to be told that they are beautiful? Why complain about guys who treat them well? Why are most divorces initiated by middle-aged women past their physical prime? Why look down on male sexual desire while building your lifestyle on it? I could go on and on, but my point is that the attitude of women towards men is substantially more adversarial than can be explained via anything that even remotely resembles simple competition. It is a much better fit for something that I like to call- maliciousness for its own sake.

Many readers might have, by now, recognized a common thread running through all the above-mentioned examples of human behavior. They all clearly a demonstrate a deep-seated and widespread human tendency to be deceitful, cruel, abusive and murderous for reasons that have almost nothing to with material or monetary gain. It is as if most human beings are actively driven a unscratchable itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others even if they stand to gain very little from it. Human beings as a species will spend their own time, effort and resources to hurt other living creatures just for the joy of doing so.

But why is any of this important? Haven’t human beings being like this for thousands of years? Well.. the simple answer is technology. Previously this particular human tendency was completely contained by technological limitations. People with pre-industrial and early-industrial age technology simply could not do much damage beyond their immediate vicinity. Even large-scale wars, genocides and conquests were moderated by the hard technological limitations. But that is no longer so.. and the (recognized or unrecognized) ability to fuck up the world of humans is real. I also believe that such an event is far more likely to occur as a series of unintentional coincidences, and reactions to them, than anything that is deliberately engineered. This behavioral tendency is also going to be the reason why humans (in their current form) will never become a space-faring species. Travelling between stars, you see, requires energy sources and technologies that would would let a single person kill every other human on the planet. You can be very sure that the development of such technology will result in the extinction of human beings before it is used to make a single starship.

What do you think? Comments?

Public Morality and the Fundamental Human Desire to Harm Others: 1

December 25, 2015 22 comments

In a series of previous posts, I had made the claim that human beings are predominantly motivated by a seemingly unquenchable desire to hurt, abuse, enslave or kill others- even if they do not stand to gain from such actions. I also showed how my model of human motivations is a far more rational (if distinctly unpleasant) explanation for supposedly inexplicable human behaviors such as the desire to accumulate extremely large amounts of money, risk your life for fighting wars that enrich a few or exhibit strong belief in any religious ideology. I will now extend that particular line of thinking to show you how public morality is based in the fundamental human desire to harm others. To be clear, I am defining public morality as a set of beliefs or worldview forced by some people on others to achieve some supposedly positive goals, ranging from creating “stable” social systems or “improving” some aspect of the general state of humanity to “saving” the world. The short version of my theory is as follows:

All types and forms of public morality (religious or secular) are grounded in the human desire to hurt, abuse, enslave or kill other people.

Here are two examples of what I am talking about..

Example 1: The Caste (or more accurately Jati) system in India

Inspite of what of its defenders still say, practice of the caste (jati) in India was and still is the largest and best example of an entire region of the world systemically screwing itself for no rational gain. While we can debate about the role of Muslim and British rule in shaping certain aspects of system, especially as it appears today, it is clear that practice of caste (jati) had severely damaged civil society in India many centuries prior to the rise of non-indigenous rulers. Infact, I would argue that Muslim and British conquest of India was almost entirely possible because the system had inhibited development of functional societies which could support united action against external invaders.

There is a lot of historical evidence which suggests that Indians tried hard not to learn from either their military success or setbacks, let alone history. Nor did they want to be involved in doing anything that was considered “foreign”- and that included making quality guns, wearing tailored clothes, building better ships or using the printing press. It is no secret the considerations of caste (jati) and “ritual purity” were largely behind these and many other disastrous decisions made by the overwhelming majority of indians for many centuries. So, how do you rationally explain the enthusiastic willingness of hundreds of millions over a period of more than a thousand years to deliberately ignore the proverbial writing on the wall? Also, why would any non-retarded person buy into and enthusiastically defend a mindset and worldview that was plainly inadequate?

While traditionalist types have long argued that the caste system provided public morality goods such as “stability” and “order”, there is a lot of evidence which shows that system was almost never able to provide either as illustrated by the innumerable accounts of wanton murder and plunder by muslim and british rulers. So what did it really provide to its ardent believers and supporters? Well.. based on it worked in real life, it is clear that the system was consistently able to consistently provide just one product to its believers, namely a pre-made worldview which allowed them to justify horrendous levels of neglect, abuse and mistreatment of other people. Moreover, unlike classical racism (which makes it kinda hard to blatantly fuck over against someone in your own large group) the presence of a large number of castes, sub-castes and jatis make it possible for almost everyone to participate in the game of fucking over somebody else.

In other words, the caste (jati) system was incapable of providing its believers anything beyond a justification for the neglect, abuse and mistreatment of other people. We therefore have to seriously consider the possibility that extensive and long-lived social systems which impose significant negative costs on its believers can be kept alive and fueled almost entirely by the apparently widespread (but hidden) human desire to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill other people. As you will see, this phenomena is hardly restricted to one particular traditional belief system or region of the world.

Example 2 : Monotheism, especially its Judeo-Christian-Islamic version

As I previously mentioned- the human desire to hurt, abuse, enslave or kill others is hardly restricted to those who claim to believe in multiple “gods”. Infact, the history of monotheistic faiths provides some of the most compelling examples of religion being a force for evil. Just think of all the innumerable acts of personal violence, wars and genocides performed under the guise of supporting the “one true faith” and “one true god” who just so happens to be one the perpetrators of the said actions worship. But all this talk about the history of religion-inspired violence raises an important, but often ignored, class of questions.

Why did so many people who had no real hope of material gain from participating in such acts nevertheless enthusiastically participate in them? Why were so many desperately poor and deprived people so willing to fight against people they barely knew? Why were so many people willing to suffer serious injury or death for highly dubious causes? What did so many gain from participating as the enthusiastic cannon fodder?

The conventional explanation for the willing and enthusiastic participation of most people in such acts is that they were gullible idiots who were brainwashed by the “high IQ” elites into doing all those things. But was that ever the case? Were most people stupid enough to believe that a god unable to help them feed their chronically ill and hungry children was real? Were they stupid enough to believe that those who ruled them were actually good human beings? Were they incapable of observing that conflicts and wars always hurt people like them far more than the few who profited from them? I mean.. what did they really gain from all this bullshit?

My alternative explanation is that religion simply provided a cover for all those people to indulge their appetite for hurting, abusing, enslaving and killing other people. They kept on participating in such behavior and actions even when it caused them considerable personal losses. In other words, even a significant risk of personal hardship, losses or even death (in addition to the lack of personal material gain) is not enough to stop most people from indulging their appetite of hurting and killing other people.

Upcoming posts in this series will look at a number of everyday and supposedly “normal” examples of public morality- from why certain things are NSFW, what actually is behind the public support for the USA-led war on Drugs, why religious conservatives oppose abortion, why many men oppose prostitution to why those most negatively affected by capitalism and the nation-state are often their most enthusiastic supporters. I will also talk about how supposedly do-gooder movements such MADD, PETA etc and the whole panoply of movements to “stop” global climate change are actually driven by the need to screw over other people rather than help them.

What do you think? Comments?

On Donald Trump’s Campaign for the Republican Nomination: 6

October 31, 2015 4 comments

Previous posts in this series have focused on different aspects of Trump’s remarkable, if not totally unexpected, success in the race for the 2016 republican presidential nomination. I have written about how his success is one of the many symptoms of ongoing failure in modern nation states and why presstitutes hate him so much. I have touched on how his blunt style of communication makes him appear more human than his competitors. Issues such as why he might be more interested in winning the republican nomination than the presidency have been discussed. I have also written about how modern “professional” ineffectual politicians have paved the way for Trump and others like him.

But have you ever wondered why Trump is running as a Republican? What accounts for his continuing stable popularity among those identifying with the Republican “base”? And why are those in the Republican “base” so willing to stand behind him?

First, let me be clear about one thing- I do not think that the Democrat “base” is significantly smarter than or morally superior to its Republican counterpart. They are just two groups of peasants who willingly believe in different (and mutually exclusive) sets of lies, myths and bullshit. Those who believe that Obama is anything other than a neoliberal scam artist are as willfully delusional as those who saw (and still see) Bush43 as a brave statesman defending ‘murica from those swarthy ‘evildoers’. Similarly those who see Hillary or even Bernie as the only candidates who can save the USA from itself are as willfully stupid as those who believe that electing Trump (or any one of those other faceless midgets) will make ‘murica great again.

So, why am I describing the Republican and Democrat base (faithful) as willfully delusional ‘peasants’? Why call them ‘peasants’ as opposed to small towners, provincially minded, working class, middle class or something along those lines? Why does the ‘peasant’ label best describes the core supporters of political parties (or any other large impersonal organisation) in the USA or any other country in the world.

The short answer to that question is that being a ‘peasant’ is a mindset and worldview. Possessing that particular mindset and worldview requires considerable effort by its possessors. It is this willingness to buy into and further invest in a particular mindset/worldview that distinguishes a ‘peasant’ from other similar-sounding labels based on place of residence (small towns, suburbs), occupation (farmer) or relative income levels (mostly working poor or middle class). In the past, I have written a series of posts under the general title “What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species“. In that series, I pointed out that the lives of a majority (or significant minority) of human beings are dominated by a strong, but seldom acknowledged, desire to screw over other people. I also pointed out that many people will do so under the cover of bullshit ideologies or pleasant-sounding pretenses and even at a net loss to themselves.

That raises another question- why do so many people behave like that? Why would any person with more than half a functioning brain act against their own best interest. Conventional explanations for this behavior range from cultural brainwashing, sophisticated marketing, a lack of exposure to other worldviews to a strong belief in “religion-based morality”.. whatever that is. But what if the real answer was far more straightforward, but depressing? What if I told you that all people who “truly” believe in any religion, ideology, impersonal institution or belief system were almost completely driven by a pre-existing desire to hurt other people.

Let me explain it with a personal anecdote.. Unlike many other around me, I have been always unable to believe in anything even vaguely resembling a belief system. My skepticism towards belief extends from traditional religions and ideologies to “scientific sounding” explanations for the world around us. But why would someone with a PhD in a STEM discipline have such skepticism about scientific explanations for anything? Well.. it comes down to two types of reasons. Firstly, having studied many areas of science (and their history) in considerable detail- I am aware that the path that leads to a better understanding of the world around us is anything but straightforward. It is no secret that the history of science contains as many instances of exaggerations, half-truths, lies and instances of wishful thinking as any other conventional religion or ideology. Science has been able to progress only because it lacks an official (and “infalliable”) core book, but that issue is best left for another post.

There is however a second, and perhaps more important, reason behind my inability to believe in an external belief system.

While I have no scruples about screwing over adversaries (or their enablers) in any manner possible, I am not interested in hurting others without a reason- even it is tenuous at best. To be clear, I am no pacifist and am totally OK with screwing other or even exterminating mindless tools who have the potential to hurt me. But it all comes down to one question- How does it (or could) affect ME. I am no interest in fighting for, or helping, any impersonal group that has not benefited me in the past. Consequently, I do not need to believe in external belief systems. To put it another way, the desire to believe in an external belief system implies that you have no worthwhile hope of personal gain from believing in it.

You do not require to believe in an external ideology to act in your own best interests. But you do have to believe in an external ideology to willingly take a loss for the benefit of somebody else.

That is why religious minded ‘peasants’ who slaved for greedy and manipulative landlords would mistreat, abuse and exploit their own children than try to undermine their common exploiter. That is why ‘peasants’ have always been so willing to screw over each other even if it benefits their common exploiter. That is why ‘peasants’ go to war for their masters and risk their lives to fight against another group of ‘peasants’ they have never previously met. That is also why Irish and Scottish soldiers (‘peasants’) in the British Empire fought for it rather than against it. That is also why ‘murican peasants are so willing to fight for greedy and duplicitous assholes against people they have never met and who never posed any real threat to them. I could go on.. but you get my point.

To summarize this post- there will always be enough supporters for any potential leader who promises his followers a chance to abuse someone who appears to be weaker than them. It does not matter if this promise is implicit (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton42) or explicit (Trump). It also does not matter if the promise was made in 19th century Britain, 20th century Germany and Russia or 21st century USA. The less than uplifting reality is that a majority (or significant minority) of humans will faithfully follow any leader who promises them a chance to abuse, maim or kill somebody else- even if they do not benefit from doing so. But don’t take my word for it- read some history and look around yourself.

What do you think? Comments?

Cultural Cognitive Dissonance and Reactions to Games like “Hatred”

March 22, 2015 11 comments

One of the more interesting and, in my opinion, innovative FPS being developed at this moment is a FPS video game known as “Hatred“. The overall story-line of this game can be best summarized as..

In Hatred, a shooter video game presented in isometric perspective, the player-character is a mass-killer who hates humanity and begins a “genocide crusade” to kill civilians and police officers. He can also use these individuals as human shields.

By now, most readers must have correctly guessed that development of this game has been more than a bit controversial. Media reactions to its development and imminent release have been rather.. diverse. Some presstitutes claim that this game showcases all that is wrong with the gaming industry. Other presstitutes claim that it has crossed a “moral boundary”. Yet others want to see it banned, something they nearly succeeded at before failing miserably.

But why are so many presstitutes getting their proverbial panties in a knot about a video game that is in many ways identical to other FPS games. I mean.. games where you can kill (usually shoot) other people have been one of the most popular and financially successful category of video games. So what makes a game like “Hatred” different from a game in the Wolfenstein, Doom, Half-Life, Call of Duty or Far Cry series? Nor is the trope of an amoral killer something new. The “Hitman” game series is centered around an amoral assassin killing people for money AND you can kill any character in that game series as long as your character can survive the consequences of his actions.

So why are all these presstitutes hating on “Hatred”? Also, more curiously, why do so many gamers find the central premise of this game somewhat disturbing?

As I will show you in the rest of this post, the public reactions to that game exposes one of the central cognitive dissonances characterizing human “civilization”. So let us start our analysis of public reactions to this game with a simple question. Why does this particular game elicit such a strong negative reaction from so many tools.. I mean.. people?

As I have mentioned before, many of later titles in the “Hitman” series are not that different from “Hatred”- in overall concept and style of gameplay. While titles in the “Hitman” series have been controversial in the past- they have never elicited the large-scale public reaction that “Hatred” has managed to elicit. But why? or to be more precise- why not?

What makes an open-ended game where an emotionally stunted guy kills for money significantly less controversial than one in which a guy kills for his own personal beliefs and views on humanity?

In a previous series of posts about what I really think about human beings as a species, I had made a number of points relevant to the current post. Two points especially relevant to this post goes something like this..

Human beings seem to be actively driven a unscratchable itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others even if they stand to gain very little from it.

All religions and popular ideologies are about rationalizing and sanctifying the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of those labelled as “others”.

Put together, they provide the first reasonable explanation as to why “Hatred” elicits so much more negative social reaction than something like “Hitman: Blood Money“. Endless acquisition of money and performing a job irrespective of the consequences of your actions are important sacraments of the secular religion of capitalism. Therefore killing other people for the sole purpose of making money, regardless of the rationale behind doing so, is perfectly acceptable to a believer in the secular religion of capitalism- especially its american variant.

A game like “Hatred” on the other hand has a protagonist who kills because he personally hates what those whom he kills represent. He is not doing it for money, love, fame, honor, fame, religion or any other stupid bullshit that most people want to believe in to justify their actions. Also, he is not taking orders from anyone else nor is he working to further the career or financial aspirations of somebody else.

His actions are an overt and obvious repudiation of the central sacraments and tenets of the dominant secular religion of our era, aka modern nation-state supported corporate capitalism.

But it gets better.. or worse, depending on how you look at it. By not invoking socially acceptable reasons for killing innocent people, such as nationalism or contrived explanations based around self-defense, the character of the protagonist exposes the emptiness of those beliefs and explanations. Take nationalism as an example. What kind of moron would go and kill people on the other side of the world when he has never met them in real life or has directly suffered because of their actions. But then again.. look at human history.

Almost every single war in history was fought by people who did not have personal enmities with those they fought against to benefit those who facilitated that confrontation. Yet, human “civilization” spends a lot of time trying to glorify the sacrifices of tools who die or get crippled to further enrich a few. Now, such glorifications and exhalations rarely include worthwhile financial compensation- but that is another story.

My point is, human “civilization” is totally OK with people killing other people in the name of personally useless concepts such religion, nation or race. It is also OK with committing genocide as long as it based on taking orders from others. It is also OK with slavery and mass incarceration of certain racial groups as long it is profitable for a few. But it is not OK with a person killing others just because he personally hates them.

So what does all of this say about the true nature of human “civilization”, “culture” or any of the other pretenses most human beings cling to? Think about it.. I have, and it is not flattering- to put it mildly. Such an analysis also exposes the complete moral relativism underlying belief systems that pretend (and advertise themselves) to be based in real or absolute truths.

What do you think? Comments?

Another Reason for Decreased Fertility Rates in Developed Countries

June 25, 2021 19 comments

As regular readers know, I have written more than a few posts (link 1, link 2 and link 3) about low fertility rates in developed countries. This post highlights another explanation for those rates which works irrespective of culture or race. To be clear, I am not saying that it is the only one- but it is certainly one of the major, if not the most important, reason. As you will see, it is also the least obvious to anyone who grew up in the West within the past century.

To understand what I am getting at, let me ask you a simple question- around what principle have human societies been organized for over 99.9% of our history as a species. Is it money, land or domesticated animals? Or was it around religion, a secular legal code or some sort of ideology? Here is a clue.. most of mankind did not use money regularly as late as a couple hundred years ago and the oldest conventional religion still around is about 2500 years old. Modern human beings, in contrast, have been around for at least 100k years.

To make a long story short, human society has evolved and been primarily organized around long-term (but non-monetary) human relationships. As late as 18th century, most people in the west did not use money to perform most of the exchanges necessary for daily life. But what does any of this have to do with rapidly decreasing fertility among developed countries since the 1970s. To understand that, let me ask you another question- what motivates people to have to raise children? You might think the answer is simple, but it is not.

See, many of you might think that people in past used to have kids because effective birth control was not available. Even that is only partially true, but it brings up an even bigger question which most people ignore. Let me put it this way.. if the lack of birth control caused a large number of births, what motivation did parents have to care for and raise children? Willful or less than willful neglect can easily kill young children, yet even in the poorest and materially deprived populations, that is seldom the case. Some might say that such behavior is instinctual- but if that was the case shouldn’t more people in developed countries having kids? Clearly they don’t lack the resources for raising them.

Some sophists might say that having kids has become very expensive in the West. But is that really the case? In most developed countries outside USA, having kids is no more financially onerous than having a half-decent car. And this brings me to another question- given the chance, why will more people in West buy and maintain a semi-luxury car with extra money than have a child, let alone another one. Are you starting to see what I am driving at? Still confused? Let me ask you the same question even more bluntly- why do people see having children as a net negative drain on their perceived happiness?

To understand why people in West see children as costly inconveniences, we have to first talk about why humans throughout history saw having and raising children as a source of great joy and life-cycle fulfillment. See.. in the era before monetization of everything (past century) the vast majority of people lived a life defined by long-term relationships with others around them. You can now see why having and raising children was a source of joy and fulfillment to people throughout history. Children are the ultimate in new long-term relationships and the only way of leaving a legacy.

So what changed? It started with monetization of society in West. There is a reason why 18th century lords in UK used to have a dozen children while their late-19th century counterparts often had only a few, or sometimes none. But why does monetization of society make it less worthwhile to have children? Well.. because heavily monetized societies are impersonal and atomized. Conversely societies that are not heavily monetized still take joy in having and raising children. This is also why working class people in UK kept having large families into the 1930s. The same applies for societies all over the world- from Ireland and Italy to India and Japan. But is the increasing amount of social atomization the only reason?

As it turns out, there are other related reasons. See.. in pre-industrial or early-industrial societies, the children you had and raised also lived and worked around you for the rest of your life. In other words, you spent a lot of time with your children and vice-versa. However in a society where both parents work 9-to-5 jobs, kids go to schools, then move away for university and jobs- there just isn’t time and space to form strong bonds with them. Most people in the West see their kids for perhaps 2-4 hours a day until they move away for university and jobs- often forever. The socio-economic system in West and other developed countries forces perpetual loneliness on its inhabitants.

Now tell me why would a sane person put in the effort and sacrifice to have and raise kids if they could not even provide them basic human company in their lives. It is therefore my opinion that Western social systems based on the current model of removing all potential to form meaningful human interactions and relationships fully deserve to die. The only hope for a better world comes from the demise of this dystopic status quo- hopefully sooner than later.

What do you think? Comments?

LIEbrals Lack Mental Capability to Interpret or Understand Science: 1

February 3, 2021 32 comments

In previous posts (link 1, link 2, link 3), I wrote about how the seriously botched response to COVID-19 pandemic had exposed the profound intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by liberals. While working on another post on that topic, I realized that this dysfunctional response was similar to others displayed by them in response to a variety of other topics and issues, from belief in anthropogenic climate change to mindless cheerleading of SpaceX and Tesla. After a bit more reflection, it became obvious that one common thread ran through all these topics, namely an almost complete inability to understand science, specifically in the manner which somebody involved in hard science as a life-long vocation would.

But don’t liberals constantly profess to “believing in science”? Well.. that is just the first part of this problem! Anyone who actually does science as a vocation will tell you that it is not a system of uncritical belief in a series of “facts” or “experts”. Science is about observation and measurement of stuff and phenomena to derive hypotheses and theories which make further predictions that are validated or disproved by more observations or measurements. This is why scientific theories, unlike religious beliefs, will change a lot over time. Sometimes newer theories, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity, providing a better explanation for physical phenomena than classical physics. On other occasions, dominant scientific theories of past end up as historical footnotes after a better theory comes along. A good example of the later is how most older theories of geological change were discarded once the evidence for plate tectonics became overwhelming after the early 1960s.

Therefore, anybody who claims to “believe in science”, “science is settled”, “experts agree..” is talking about their faith, not science. To make matters more interesting, science is a very human enterprise littered with many examples of outright scams and half-truths peddled for reasons ranging from personal ego to monetary considerations. For example, prior to end of WW2 eugenics was a fashionable idea within the scientific establishment of western countries. Similarly, beliefs about the connection between “intelligence” and race were once considered to be settled scientific “consensus”. I could go on about many more such long-lived frauds as the manufactured connection between risk of atherosclerotic heart disease and dietary fat intake or the poor real-life efficacy of anti-depressant drugs for treating most common forms of depression etc. Let’s just say that the full list of such frauds is uncomfortably long.

My point is that uncritical belief by liberals in “science” and its “experts” is no different from that displayed by conservatives in “religion” and its “priests”. But the full implications of the statement might not be readily obvious to most of you. So let me explain.. Organized religion has, throughout human history, been used to justify everything from wars, slavery, genocide, widespread poverty and all sorts of unnecessary suffering on a massive scale. I would go far as to say that organized religion (of any type) has no redeeming feature sufficient to even vaguely balance a single major category of problems caused by it. And I am not just talking about traditional religions, because even allegedly secular ideologies such as capitalism, fascism, environmentalism, neoliberalism etc are religions in all but name. And yes.. I have theories about why most people are still attracted to shitty traditional and secular religions.

Anyway, coming back to the topic at hand- let me list a few easy to observe examples of how liberals lack the mental capacity to interpret and understand science. As you will see this results in them believing in another secular religion aka ‘scientism’.

1] One of the reasons I even considered writing this post was how western liberals have been beclowning themselves during the past year over the COVID-19 pandemic. While nobody is claiming that the pandemic is not real, its real life impact hasn’t been any worse than the 1957 and 1968 influenza pandemics- once you adjust for population and demographic profiles. And guess what.. the world didn’t shut down during those two pandemics. Furthermore, coronaviruses cause about 10-20% of upper respiratory infections in human beings- so they aren’t an unknown quantity like retroviruses such as HIV were in the 1980s. Thus far, there is nothing to suggest that the residual effects of COVID-19 infections are any worse than people recovering a moderate case of another common upper-respiratory infection.

But don’t tell that to the morons.. I mean liberals.. who are constantly getting their panties in a twist over the latest exaggerations about that virus- ranging from “new viral mutations” to “long COVID” and many other bullshit claims which fall apart once you start looking at the data and evidence behind these reports. The thing is, viruses like all other living organisms constantly mutate and some mutations get selected by evolution. The far more important question is whether these new mutations can cause a large increase in severity of disease. If they don’t- the rest is irrelevant. Also, coronaviruses mutate far more slowly than almost any other type of RNA viruses. But won’t these “mutations” affect the efficacy of vaccinations? Well.. unless your vaccine uses a very small part of the spike protein as the antigen, specific and non-specific cell-based immunity generated by the vaccine is more than capable of dealing with such small mutations.

In fact, vaccines against a number of other RNA viruses from polio, measles, rubella work just fine in spite of their causative agents having higher rates of mutations than coronaviruses. Of course, the moronic behavior by liberals does not stop there.. You might have heard about their insistence that people wear cloth or surgical facemasks to prevent COVID-19 infection. In the past few days, some of these idiots are even calling for people to wear two such masks. Now tell me something.. what proof do we have that such non-specialized facemasks work? We have known for over two decades that such facemasks cannot stop people from catching viral respiratory infections caused by viruses with the same general dimensions as COVID-19 virions. And it gets worse..

These idiots also have no interest in using repurposed drugs shown to be effective in other countries such Hydroxychloroquine + Bromohexine/ Ambroxol, Indomethacin, Ivermectin, Fluvoxamine etc. Note that all of these drugs have been shown decent efficacy in preventing hospitalizations and death in vulnerable individuals when used at normal therapeutic doses. These same losers are unwilling to face the fact that other repurposed drugs such as low-dose Colchicine reduce rates of death in hospitalized patients despite considerable evidence for such an effect. So what drives these dumbfucks to ignore multiple clinical trials showing varying but definitive levels of therapeutic activity for repurposed drugs against COVID-19.

Well.. in some cases it is simple racial prejudice because those clinical trials were conducted in non-west European countries. But in most cases, liberals don’t want to believe because the “priests” of their religion (talking heads on TV, mainstream presstitutes) have told them to not believe anything which is not “approved” by them. In case you haven’t figured it by now, this is the type of behavior seen in ardent followers of cults and religions.

Since this post is now over 1,200 words, I will stop now. In the next part of this short series, I will go into how liberal belief in “scientism” is the main reason they fall for other scams such as man-made climate change, viability of “green energy”, electric cars and the pathetic worship of Elon Musk who pushes scams such as interplanetary travel with chemical rockets and niche technologies such as StarLink satellites. And ya.. my views on the limited viability of extra-heavy lift rockets (over 50 tons launch capacity to low earth orbit) has not changed.

What do you think? Comments?

The ‘Ancient Astronaut Theory’ is Least Noxious Religion in Existence

September 7, 2020 6 comments

If you have read my blog for long enough, you might know that I have an interest in the ‘Ancient Astronaut Theory’ and UFOs- specifically, why they seem to be popular. To be very clear, I don’t subscribe to the overripe nonsense depicted on shows such as ‘Ancient Aliens’ or the writings of Erich von Däniken, Zecharia Sitchin, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos etc. Having said that, I don’t discount the possibility that intelligent species from other star systems have visited earth in the past and perhaps even interacted with human beings to a very limited extent. And yes.. I should have written more posts in that series. It is also my opinion that a small minority of UFO sightings are likely to be unmanned probes from other stellar systems.

But let us, now, focus on something else which I have also written about- namely, why TV shows such as ‘Ancient Aliens’ and books making equally bombastic claims about the ‘ancient astronaut theory’ are more popular than they were 3-4 decades ago. So how is this sort of belief different from, say, merely accepting that extraterrestrials and unmanned probes have occasionally visited earth in the past or present. Well.. for starters, accepting these possibilities doesn’t require us to reimagine our worldview. As I have said in past, there is no reason to believe that circumstances and processes which created life on earth and facilitated biological evolution are somehow unique to Earth. Indeed, given our understanding of physics, chemistry etc it would be truly bizarre if earth was only planet among trillions in our own galaxy (not to mention others) to harbor life.

And this brings me to what I consider as the real reasons behind continued popularity of ‘ancient astronaut theory’- at least as it is presented in popular TV shows and books. As I have hinted in a previous post, deep belief in that theory- specifically the stuff about “energy fields”, advanced lost civilizations, trying to integrate old-world gods with the idea of visiting aliens and how they are a benevolent guiding force for human beings sounds a lot like traditional religion. Every major religion and cult which has ever existed, at their ideological core, is about providing a simplistic but optimistic explanation for the surrounding world. This is, for example, why every religion and cult spend so much time bullshitting about ‘life after death’ or ‘reincarnation’. It is also why these ideologies have tons of often mutually contradictory rules and pedantic regulations about what people should eat, drink, wear, fuck etc.

These belief systems are about providing an illusion of control and hope for its followers. Oh ya.. and also let a priestly class swindle them out of some money and resources. But as many of you might know, technological and social changes in past century have made it increasingly hard for even moderately literate people to keep maintain their belief in such bullshit. This is why it is much easier to find devout Christians in Africa rather than Europe or devout Muslims in Pakistan than in affluent and educated Muslims in West. Belief in every single major religion requires a bronze or iron age mindset combined with high levels of poverty and illiteracy. There is however an interesting exception to that rule- Buddhism. You might have noticed that over-socialized Hollywood types or many educated affluent westerners end up with a spiritual belief system that is either Buddhism or heavily inspired by it. Here is why..

Unlike most major religion, certain interpretations of Buddhism don’t require belief in a god or only require an impersonal non-traditional god. To make a long story short, religions which don’t have a personal god deeply involved in day-to-day affairs of humans are far more plausible to believe in the 21st century than those with deities such as in old testament, new testament, Koran etc. It is also why non-traditional belief systems such as Wiccanism, nature worship and other ‘new age’ stuff are much more popular than, say, forty years ago. But what does any of this have to do with the ‘ancient astronaut theory’. Well.. a lot. For starters, popular interpretations of that theory allow many to reconcile their traditional belief systems with the age we live in. It is just easier, for many, to believe that all the ‘gods’ in traditional religion were visiting aliens.

Similarly it allows people to have personal gods who are not too involved in human lives. Even better, these ‘gods’ do not require sacrifices, temples, priests, food taboos and all that other bullshit found in traditional religions. The prophets of this religion aka people who appear on ‘Ancient Aliens’ or write those books do not lecture you on morality or demand money from you. At most they might request you to buy their books, watch the latest season of their TV show or pay ticket price for some lecture. Note that unlike their equivalents in every major religion, they do not influence the writing of laws, development of social custom etc. They are not going to excommunicate you or issue a fatwa on you for being an unbeliever. Most importantly, they still provide people with a plausible and hopeful explanation for the world around them.

In summary, the popular version of ‘ancient astronaut theory’ should be seen for what it really is- a new religion which, in many respects, is a substantial and humanistic improvement over older traditional religion and cults. It is my opinion that idiots who call themselves ‘skeptics’ and ‘atheists’ (when they are really credential-worshiping and over-socialized conformists) either don’t get this part or care. To each their own, I guess..

What do you think? Comments?