Archive

Author Archive

Democratic Party Obsession with ‘Gun Control’ will Cost Them in 2020

November 18, 2018 5 comments

Some of you might remember that just over a year ago, I wrote a post about why establishment democrats seem to obsessed with “gun control”. And yes.. there is a reason I put that term in quotation marks because, let us be honest about it, they do want to ban all guns and criminalize civilians who owned them. In case you are wondering how that could happen, let me direct you to how SWAT teams became an integral part of the “law enforcement” in USA or how petty criminals and retards are now charged under the hilariously-named PATRIOT act. My point is that history definitely shows us that powers given to large and unaccountable institutions (public or private) will always be abused, regardless of under which socio-economic paradigm they claim to operate.

It has long been my stated belief that the seemingly excessive number of deaths attributed to guns in USA are really due to the misery and hopelessness caused by living in a decaying, dying and imploding society- not unlike the deaths due to opioid overdoses and alcoholism. Also, most (almost 75%) deaths due to guns are suicides. If you add up them up, somewhere between 100-150 thousand people In USA kill themselves each year due to the high and endemic levels of despair and hopelessness caused by late capitalism aka neoliberalism. Did I mention that we have seen something similar happen in Russia after the collapse of USSR in 1991. Then again, there is something darkly funny about USA following in the footsteps of USSR.

But what does any of this have to with establishment democrats likely losing the 2020 election due to their obsession with “gun control”? Doesn’t having a president as unpopular and pathetic as Trump virtually guarantee a democratic party victory in 2020? Isn’t the possibility of having another 4-year dumpster fire sufficient to motivate democratic voters. Well.. let us have a look at results from the just-concluded 2018 elections. While the democratic party did win a majority in the house, a few governorships and about 300 seats in state legislatures- it has still not recouped the losses suffered during eight years of Obama. In other words, the low popularity of that atrocious orange moron did not translate into a massive pro-democratic party wave.

But why not? Surely, all that wall-to-wall coverage by corporate media of the latest bad decision made by the white house or talking heads communally masturbating over the most recent faux-pas by Trump must have changed some minds.. right? Who in their right minds would say that the Trump presidency is anything but a sad, but highly entertaining, dumpster fire? Why did all that talk about “Mueller”, “Russia”, “Putin” etc have so little effect on the electoral results? As it turns out, I have a theory to explain why the absolutely atrocious performance of Trump had a far smaller effect on the electoral results than many establishment democrats had hoped. And guess what, it connects very well with the subject of this post.

As I intimated in a previous paragraph, the biggest problems facing most people in USA have nothing to do with Trump, Russia, Putin or any other bullshit concocted by establishment types. Instead they are all linked to living in a system caught in a terminal death spiral. Sure.. things have never been better for the top 1% and are still acceptable for next 9%, but they suck for everyone else. Between the ludicrous cost of post-secondary education, ever-increasing levels of non-dischargeable student debt, rapidly increasing cost of what passes for “health care”, lack of stable and well-paying jobs, increasingly unaffordable housing- most people are fixated on issues which matter to them rather than what these so-called “public intellectuals” circle-jerk around.

You might think that any real opposition party in a functional democracy would take advantage of such a situation and make viable promises to fix these problems and thus get swept into power at the next election. As it turns out, there are two problems with that assumption. You see.. the democratic party is not a real opposition party and USA is not a functional democracy. Instead, the establishment wings of both political parties are part of the same party- one which owes it allegiance to the very wealthy and corporations. Both pretend to be opposed to each other so that they can maintain the illusion of a functional democracy- not unlike what one sees within professional wresting leagues. It is all political Kayfabe.

Let me remind you that establishment democrats have always colluded with their republican counterparts to push through legislation and rules which benefited the wealthy and corporations, but hurt everyone else. They colluded with republicans to push every “free-trade” agreement and treaty you can think of. They colluded with them to pass laws which enabled mass incarceration and the overt militarization of police in USA. They colluded with them to deregulate financial institutions and screw over common people. They colluded with them to make student debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. They never saw a military project too expensive to approve. In short, establishment democrats are basically republicans with better stylists and speechwriters.

But what does any of this have to with the issue of “gun control” and its adverse effect on electoral prospects of democratic party in 2020? Well.. it comes down to the only two real policy differences between the two political parties. In case you are wondering, access to abortion and gun rights are the only major differences between the two parties. As far as access to abortion is concerned, the democratic party position is going to win out in the future- largely because even republican voters below 40 are majority pro-choice. Gun control, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. While that policy had decent amount of public support during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the situation has changed a lot since then.

Many states have made it easier to buy or carry guns since the early 2000s, and this change has not resulted in an increased rate of gun-related crime. In fact, by many measures, rates of violent crime are significantly lower than in the late 1980s and early 1990s. More importantly, the trust of average people in american institutions (public and private) has declined considerably and irreversibly since the early 1990s. To make a long story short, all those bullshit “common sense gun control” laws have far less support in non-coastal states than even thirty years ago. This has however not stopped the democratic party establishment from trying to use every instance of some person shooting up random people to push for more “gun control” laws.

But.. some of you might say.. how is this any of this relevant to the 2020 election season? Here is why.. See, establishment democrats have refused to learn anything from their defeat in 2016, 2014 or 2010 etc. Any why would they? After all, they get paid the same by their rich backers irrespective of whether they win elections or not. It is all political Kayfabe. Anyway, the central rule of Kayfabe is that both parties must keep acting as if the alleged rivalries are “real” and “meaningful”. Also, neither party wants to bite the hands that feed them. Consequently, it is extremely unlikely that democrats will advance (let alone pass) any legislation which actually helps the average person. In any case, the average establishment democrat and republican legislator is far too removed from average people to give a fuck about them.

So forget higher minimum wage, healthcare for all, student loan relief, money for infrastructure, augmenting social security and medicare and say hello to increased spending for weapon systems which do not work, more bases in god-forsaken parts of Africa, more investigations of Trump, “bipartisan” agreements to cutting “entitlements” and nothing more than lip service to all the progressive causes they pretended to support while campaigning. So how do they plan to make up for this betrayal, at least in their minds. Well.. by cynically trying to pass the most insane “gun control” laws which they know will never pass the senate, let alone Trump. But why is this such a bad thing, at least from the point of winning elections?

Because it will energize gun owners to vote against them en masse. But won’t this be balanced by those who vote for tougher “gun control” legislation? To be blunt.. unless you are living in the Bay Area or some parts of NY or NJ, not really. But it get worse. See.. establishment democrats will either dither over or reject any attempt to (let alone actually) pass legislation in line with their progressive and populist pre-election promises. In other words they will disappoint enough people who voted for them in 2018 to an extent where they will not vote in 2020 (like what happened in 2010 after 2008). And you know what.. they don’t care because their rich corporate backers will keep paying them the same whether they win or lose. It is all about keeping this pathetic and now very obvious game of make-believe “functional democracy” going.

What do you think? Comments?

Ubiquitous Social Media Creates an Abundance of Dancing Monkeys

November 16, 2018 21 comments

Over the past decade, I have noticed the rapid growth of a peculiar trend concerning the manner in which people interact with those around them. Almost everyone and their dog (in many cases, literally) wants to create and project an artificial idealized image of themselves. While this trend is most obvious when you look around on Instagram, but it found on every social media platform (YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, Tinder etc) and more worryingly.. in real life. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the desire to project an idealized image of oneself is something new or inherently dangerous. It is however hard to deny that ubiquitous social media has made what was once a small-scale and localized behavior into something that is disturbing and potentially dangerous.

To understand what I am talking about, let us go back a little in history to a TV program known as “America’s Funniest Home Videos“. While the concept might seem quaint today, most people do not understand how revolutionary it really was in 1989. In a single stroke, it allowed anybody with a camcorder who was lucky or clever enough to film a “viral” video clip to become famous and even make some money. I should point out that this was in an era when becoming famous required a combination of luck and fellating the people who owned and ran media outlets. Now any person with some degree of understanding of how media worked could use that knowledge to game the system and become famous and even make some money.

But why is that such a bad thing? Who does not want to be famous and rich? In my opinion, the problem lies not so much with seeking fame and fortune as how it all of this interacts with late capitalism. See.. when AFHV came out in 1989, it was still pretty easy to get a decent and fairly stable job which paid enough to live a middle-class lifestyle. Being famous by having your “viral” video clip shown on AFHV was akin to getting an extra boost for your social life. Being a famous (or infamous) public figure was not a career choice for most people. Now fast forward to 2018 and we are in a situation where ‘normal’ jobs and vocations are increasingly difficult to get and almost everyone below a certain age is juggling multiple low-paid and precarious jobs.

To help readers understand why this trend is disturbing and potentially dangerous, let me ask you a simple question- would you seriously consider gambling at casinos, buying lottery tickets or betting on horses as a career choice? If not, why not? While it is possible to make a living and even get rich by engaging in such activities- the chances of succeeding in them (especially in a consistent manner) are really small. In other words, the chances of failure are unacceptably high for the vast majority of people- and even those with some skill are not consistently successful. Coincidentally the same is true for business ventures, even though the neo-liberal scammers who want to promote the snake-oil of “entrepreneurship” would like you to believe otherwise.

It is no secret that a few people have become very famous and rich because of their social media presence. Even more have become semi-famous and make decent if unstable income from the content they create as well as their social media presence. Neither would be an issue if we were living in a normal society. But we live in late capitalism where the vast majority of people face an ever diminishing chance of finding a stable livelihood. Combine this with the almost lottery like success of a few and it is not hard to see how many more might be suckered into believing that they have a chance at fame and riches. Furthermore, the barriers to entry are non-existent and most famous internet celebrities are not even unusually good-looking.

There is also another uniquely american issue which makes this far worse than necessary. As many of you know, american culture (especially post-1980) celebrates the culture of scamming.. I mean “hustle”. Now combine this with the already poor career prospects for most people and the low barrier for entry and you can start to see how this could become problematic. And it has.. YouTube channels where attractive women model swimwear and lingerie can easily get 100k-500k subscribers (example 1, example 2 and example 3) as can ugly women pretend to be white trash. Some of you might also have heard about attractive and popular teen girls making decent money as social media “influencers”. But why is any of this problematic in the long run?

well.. because, for one, it creates a society where the ability to cultivate a public image and bullshit is infinitely more important than actual knowledge or competence. That is how we end up with media savvy mediocrities such as Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ernest Moniz instead of Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. That is how we get endless and insipid reboots of older beloved movies and TV shows rather than anything new and path-breaking. That is also how we get other mediocrities such as atrocious and hyped “collaborations” between previously famous musicians or autotuned losers who look and sound the same. Did I mention the sad losers who cheer on charlatans pimping 30-40 year old technology such as Elon Musk?

Eventually you end up with a society full of con-artists (of varying skill levels) engaged in a constant struggle to ‘out-con’ each other. To be fair, this process was already underway in USA. It is just that the effect of ubiquitous social media on this trend has been analogous to spraying a lot of gasoline on an already destructive fire. But what does any of this have to do with creating large numbers of dancing monkeys, and what do I mean by that term? Well.. dancing monkeys are people whose livelihood is heavily dependent on their enthusiasticness of their performance. This is especially apparent on social media platforms like Twitter and FaceBook where people spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to make themselves look and act the part.

That is why, for example, every establishment journalists is perpetually cheering on the “mueller investigation” or how con-artists supported by right-wing think tanks see deep state conspiracies behind every audible fart. That is also why SJWs spend so much time on tone-policing, doxxing “unbelievers” and other acts of fake self-righteousness. And there is paid astroturfing and bot-farms who post content on those and other platforms. But it gets worse.. ever wondered how the gmail user-interface keeps getting worse or why install size of iOS keeps on increasing despite lack of new features? Oh how Microsoft keeps releasing shittier updates to Windoze 10?

Guess what… it is all about dancing monkeys (in the management) desperately wanting to create the appearance of effort and hard work. That is why, almost every day, you hear about some fire or police department participate in a make-a-wish for some dying kid. Or why PR departments of “famous” universities put out daily press releases about how their scholars are on the verge of curing cancer or solving some other problem- and then we hear nothing more about it till they recycle the same bullshit template a couple of weeks with different names and a slightly different writeup. As I said before, this problem is not new but it is undeniable that ubiquitous social media has made it significantly worse by speeding up the contradictions inherent in late capitalism.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Nov 13, 2018

November 13, 2018 1 comment

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

Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: Nov 9, 2018 – Amateur cuties riding reverse cowgirl style.

3D Toons of Spanked Cuties: Nov 12, 2018 – Rendered 3D toons of cuties getting spanked.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Some Thoughts on the Future Career Trajectories of Trump’s Progeny

November 11, 2018 9 comments

As many of you know, establishment presstitutes.. I mean journalists.. love to spend many hours every day dissecting each stupid tweet and inane utterance made by Trump. I am also not the first to point out that covering the shitshow known as the Trump presidency has been profitable for establishment media outlets. This type of reactive pseudo-journalism has, however, led them to ignore far more important fuckups made by orange clown administration such as its continuing support for Saudi/UAE-funded genocide in Yemen, continued involvement in the 17-year old lost war in Afghanistan, long-term consequences of ongoing trade war with China etc.

Of course, focusing on real and consequential issues has never been the strength of mainstream media types who would rather cover what some manufactured “celebrity” said, did or fucked on that day. Either that or some ‘human-interest’ story about some cute animal being rescued or another useless act of charity for some physically or mentally challenged person. My point is that establishment or mainstream media is nothing more than a bunch of incompetent and incestuous sycophants who owe their current positions to being born to wealthy parents. You cannot really expect them to come up material that is not bullshit, distraction, group-think or propaganda.

Having said that, let us now turn our attention to the topic of this post which, as the title says, is educated speculation about the future career trajectories of Trump’s progeny. To make things easier, let us restrict ourselves to his five acknowledged children: Donald Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany and Barron. Yes.. I am aware of claims that Trump allegedly has a child or two other than those mentioned in the previous sentence. However, being an unacknowledged bastard child of Trump does carry even a tiny fraction of the liability of being one of those five. But why should being an acknowledged child of Trump carry any liability in the first place?

I mean.. don’t most children of ex-presidents (at least in living memory) end up leading very materially comfortable, if often rather uneventful, lives. When was the last time you heard news about the children of Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Jimmy Carter or Reagan. Even those with public careers such as children of JFK, Bush43 etc are not especially hated or detested. But let us be honest about something- no president in living memory was so deeply hated and reviled by a large part of the establishment as Trump- such is curious, since he has so far behaved just like another republican president but without the so-called “polish”.

In any case, his unpopularity with the establishment is not the only reason for his progeny to be uniquely susceptible to future retaliation from the deep state. For one, adult children of previous presidents have traditionally maintained a considerable distance from the office of presidency and its powers. Secondly, their professions or vocations were seldom dependent on continued political patronage. For at least three of Trump’s children (Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric), this is not the case because they are intimately associated in the public mind with Trump’s presidency and engaged in a line of work (real estate development) which requires continued political patronage.

Let us first quickly talk about the two (Tiffany, Baron) who have minimal public association with the toxic public image of Trump. As far as most people and the establishment is concerned, Tiffany Trump is a Trump only by virtue of him being her biological father. It is well known that she has spent minimal time with him growing up and is seen more as the daughter of Marla Maples than of Trump. Furthermore, she has little connection with her father’s businesses. She is therefore least likely to suffer any negative consequences for being one of his children. The establishment and deep state also does not see her as a threat or standard-bearer for Trump.

The next least affected progeny (Baron) is.. to put it politely.. a bit “special”. It is not exactly a secret that Baron displays many behavioral features associated with autism even though he appears to have a reasonably high level of functioning. His young age and obvious disability does however make him seem harmless and even elicit vaguely sympathy from people- even if his father is Trump and mother is basically the botoxed version of Marie Antoinette. Unless he does something rash, stupid or highly criminal in the future- he will be minimally affected by being a progeny of Trump. However unlike Tiffany, his future is still tied to his father and mother.

Eric Trump is the first of Trump’s progeny whose livelihood will almost certainly be damaged by that association. Some of you might think that all his future problems are going to be somehow connected to the Mueller investigation. I think otherwise. The Trump business model for developing real estate is somewhat different from those of most other developers. The brand is almost as (if not more) important than the actual product- even more so in overseas projects. Moreover, the type of real estate projects they are involved in require considerable local political patronage. It is fair to say that he and his siblings are not unlikely to have much local political patronage for future projects in most urban parts of USA- and other countries by 2020.

Then there is Ivanaka, or the one Trump would fuck if she was not his daughter. It is likely that her future will far bleaker than most imagine because she is the one most associated with him. While outwardly the least controversial, certain decisions made by her husband during the 2016 campaign are almost certain to haunt her. But there is more, much more. See.. in spite of her recent public efforts to distance herself from him, she is still widely seen as a close confidant of Trump. To put it another way, a lot of the anger (popular and establishment) towards Trump will negatively affect her future endeavors- especially after 2020. Also, Jared Kushner might soon serve some time behind bars, just like his father.

And this brings us to the caricature known as Donald Jr. For starters, he might also have to serve time behind bars because of the Mueller investigation. But that is only the beginning. As many of you know, his association with alt-right figures makes him unusually difficult to rehabilitate. Also, he has pissed off more people than anyone in that family other than his father. It does not help that he is seen as heir apparent to Trump’s business. Long story short- it is very likely that he will selected for special treatment, for many years to come, by the establishment class. Then again, who does not like a good ‘reality’ show.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage: 4

November 4, 2018 46 comments

In the previous post of this series, I mentioned that my escort use increased a lot after starting at a new job near a large cosmopolitan city. FYI, this was not my original plan and I would have preferred something approaching normie relationships. However it quickly became obvious to me that all the ‘unpaid’ chicks I could get were.. to put it mildly.. lacking in the looks department in addition to displaying an attitude derived from their racist mindset. My point is that just because you end up fucking a chick on a regular basis does not mean she is not racist. I am also aware that some of you might see this as an example of me being too demanding.

So why care about a moderately racist mindset in some girl you are regularly banging? And aren’t most escorts also a bit racist? Let me tackle the later issue first. See.. an escort showing a racist worldview is problematic only if her beliefs negatively affects the services she provides. As long as the quality and range of services provided are identical irrespective of race and ethnicity of client, her beliefs are largely irrelevant. This is analogous to a moderately anti-semitic waitress having to regularly serve groups of Jewish customers. As long as she does her job well, keeps her fat mouth shut and fake-smiles often, nobody gives a fuck.

In other words, escorts displaying ambient levels of racism are not as problematic as ‘unpaid’ chicks with a similarly racist mindset. But why is that so, and what makes ‘unpaid’ chicks having a racist mindset problematic in the first place? Well.. it comes down to racism being just one manifestation of a far deeper problem known as systemic ‘magical thinking‘. To be fair, the problem lies not so much with magical thinking as it does with not recognizing it as such. We all engage in some level of magical thinking on a daily basis, but most of the time we recognize and treat it that way. Let me explain this concept with a couple of relatable examples.

Over the years I have purchased a few lottery tickets, even though I was always aware that my chances of winning a large prize or the jackpot were infinitesimally small. Similarly, there have been times when I used to frequently check newspaper horoscopes- even though I didn’t believe in astrology. Without going into much detail, I did both things during a couple of periods in my life when things did not look particularly positive. One might ask.. what is the real difference between a person who buys lottery tickets once in a while and woman with a racist mindset, if both are examples of magical thinking?

In my opinion, it comes down to self-awareness. While I used to buy lottery tickets and check horoscopes, it never occurred to me to build my life around winning a jackpot or some newspaper horoscope coming true. As far as I was concerned, both were nothing more than entertainment. Now contrast this with how a racist mindset distorts a woman’s grasp on reality. As I mentioned in an older post, a number of very average and mediocre women who rejected me have had sex with some real ‘winners’ in the past. Have you wondered how all those average, mediocre and below-average chicks were able to justify their life choices and decisions?

It comes down to one variant of magical thinking aka racism. You see.. they believed that despite their utter mediocrity and general patheticness, they were somehow intrinsically “better” than and or “superior” to non-whites. Furthermore, this belief cannot be changed since it part of their self-identity and they will keep believing in it till their death. While it is possible to find individuals who are less fucked up in the head, they are the minority. But why is this such a problem for having anything approaching a normie relationship. Well.. it comes down to them deluding themselves into believing that they have leverage over you when they do not have any.

I have seen tons of women with no career prospects, no independent source of money, extremely mediocre looks and making barely enough to keep a roof over their heads behave as if they were destined for greatness. Then there are younger chicks with almost minimum wage jobs who firmly believe that their dream guy is right around the corner. Even those whom I “helped” in exchange for services many years ago never stopped believing that they were somehow destined for greatness or at least an upper-middle class lifestyle. More problematically, this does not change even after hitting ‘the wall’. If anything, their solipsism goes into overdrive.

But it gets worse.. if that is possible. Even the ones you end up fucking never stop believing that they deserve better, regardless of how pathetic and mediocre they really are. And we have not even touched the issue of how the high rate of rejection from utterly mediocre chicks alters your own perception of them. To make a long story short, you stop seeing them as even sub-human, let alone human. Now combine this with the fact that they are average to below-average in looks and mediocre (at best) in bed. And let me be clear about one thing.. I did not arrive at this conclusion based on a few isolated incidents or a small sample size.

In the next part of this series, I will tell you about how specific experiences during the 2005-2009 timespan finally made me decide to choose the escort-only path.

What do you think? Comments?

Halloween Movie: Night of the Demons (1988)

October 31, 2018 Leave a comment

In my opinion, Night of the Demons is a good representative of horror films made during 1985-1993 time period. It has also become somewhat of a cult movie over the years. The movie has a pretty decent story, reasonably good acting and production values- which is surprising when you realize that it was made for about 1.2 million. I actually enjoyed watching it.

The very short version of the story is as follows: Ten teenagers party at an abandoned funeral parlor on Halloween night. When an evil force awakens, demonic spirits keep them from leaving and turn their gathering into a living Hell. Find out who lives and who is killed..

Enjoy! Comments?

On Hari Kondabolu’s Crusade against ‘Apu’ Character in The Simpsons

October 30, 2018 5 comments

I am sure that many readers of this blog have, over the last few months, heard something about an obscure (and untalented) Indian “comedian” known as Hari Kondabolu try to use a SJW-ism heavy documentary to promote the claim that the Apu character in ‘The Simpsons’ is somehow an incredibly racist stereotype. So let me begin by acknowledging that the Apu character is a racial stereotype, and was always seen as such- even when it was introduced as early as the 8th episode of Season 1 in 1990. Nor am I pushing the counter-argument that it is all OK because every characters in that show is a stereotype (which is also correct). Instead, I will focus on the likely motivations for a person such as Kondabolu to go on this fake moral crusade.

But before we go into Kondabolu’s likely and selfish motivations, let me tell me what struck me about this controversy when I first heard it a few months ago. While portrayals of non-whites in american media have almost always been negative, till the last few years- there was one aspect of Kondabolu’s crusade which immediately felt odd, even then. The choice of Apu as the most pernicious media stereotype for a person of Indian descent struck me as peculiar, since it ignored the significantly worse stereotype presented by the Raj Koothrappali character on that sad laugh-track ridden piece of crap aka ‘the Big Bang Theory’. So what made Kondabolu ignore a far worse stereotypical character from a much more recent show?

To understand what I am talking about, let us quickly compare both fictional characters starting with Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. As you might have guessed from the inauthentic name itself, this character in ‘The Simpsons’ is basically how many supposedly “liberal” and “enlightened” whites in USA saw Indian immigrants throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Having said that, many features of this character other than his (also) inauthentic accent are actually not negative. Confused? Let me explain. The character of Apu is a highly educated guy from India who ends up running a popular convenience store in Springfield. Note that he is never shown as incompetent or stupid. In fact, he is shown as far more knowledgeable than other characters on that show.

Apu is not depicted as being psychically smaller than other characters, effeminate or sexually awkward around women. More importantly, his life does not revolve being associated with white characters. In other words, he has his own life, world and complete social circle. He is also not interested nor seeking acceptance from white characters in that show. His political views are also not liberal or conservative. For example, he is pro-gun rights but also has no interest becoming a Christian to gain more social acceptance. Long story short, the character of Apu is fully fleshed out and equal to others on that show. One could even say that he is one of the better examples of a non-white character in american media, especially one from early 1990s.

Now let us talk about the abortion known as Raj Koothrappali on the laugh-track ridden crap-a-thon known as ‘The Big Bang Theory’. Compared to the character of Apu, Raj is brownface. What makes this even more problematic is that this particular show started in 2007. So what is this character’s distinguishing features? Well.. for starters, he too is highly educated- but any similarities with Apu end right there. Unlike Apu, the character of Raj is repeatedly shown as naive, stupid and ignorant of “american white” social conventions. He is also depicted as the “undeserving” rich progeny of some Indian guy. He has no social life beyond hanging with and trying to gain social acceptance from a bunch of white social losers.

The character of Raj, in contrast to Apu, therefore does not display agency. He is nothing more the punchline of jokes and a target for extra ridicule in that show, unlike Apu. He is not depicted as having any strong belief system, secular or otherwise. Did I mention that he is physically smaller than the other dweebs on that show? But it get’s worse. He is repeatedly shown as highly effeminate, one might say.. quasi-gay. In fact, for many years, he was shown as unable to speak in front of (white) women without being drunk. He is also depicted as unable to manage his own money or life, in other words- infantile. And that hack.. I mean Kondabolu wants us to believe that the character of Apu was a negative racial stereotype.

So why did that sad hack choose to focus on Apu in ‘The Simpsons’ rather than the execrable character of Raj in that abomination. It comes down to a calculation. Kondabolu calculated that he could get more media coverage if he went after a more well-known character than a less well-known one. Think about it, had most of you heard about Hari Kondabolu before this controversy? Why not? If you read a bit about his early career, you can clearly see a guy who is desperate to use any SJW-type issue to become famous and rich. Kondabolu was heavily in the SJW scene even before most of us knew about its existence. His choice of target had, therefore, everything to do with self-promotion and nothing to do with a genuine interest in the cause.

What do you think? Comments?