Archive

Author Archive

Some Quick Thoughts on the Mainstream Media Coverage of Venezuela

January 22, 2019 5 comments

One of the most popular talking points spouted by CONservative losers in response to any talk about implementing more socialistic policies in USA goes something like this.. “but, but look at Venezuela”. Of course, the majority of idiots.. older white people.. still appear to blindly accept this bullshit in spite of the fact that most countries in western and eastern Europe have continued to successfully implement pretty socialistic policies since end of WW2. But this post is not about the ability of older idiots, and those living in flyover states, to delude themselves. Poking fun at the behavior of brain-damaged people does get repetitive after some time. Instead, I am going to focus on the narrative of ‘western’ mainstream media about situation in Venezuela.

Just so that you know, I am going to skip a whole lot of relevant history about why things went the way they have in that country. And yes.. it all starts with commercial oil exploration almost a century ago and how the revenues from that sector enriched the small white elite and american oil corporations at the expense of everybody else. There is also a history of extensive american meddling in the politics of that country. I could go on.. but my point is that there are many good reasons why people like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro came to lead that country after many decades of very high income inequality with distinct racial overtones. Now let us get back to the main topic of this post- which concerns how western mainstream media portrays that country.

You might have noticed a slew of sensational “news” stories, which seem to appear every week over past five years, which seem to promise their gullible readers of some development in that country, which in the near future, will inevitable cause its “socialist” government to collapse. They have been telling their readers and viewers that almost everyone in that country is starving, most medicines are in short supply, millions are fleeing that country etc for the past few years and yet the government in that country continues to exist and a decent majority keep voting them back into power. So what is going on? Some of you might say that this is because the government in question enforces its diktat by extreme force. Oddly enough, most “opposition” leaders in that country are still alive and continue to protest on behalf of interests of american corporations.

What makes all of this so peculiar is that the western MSM have been writing the same “news” stories of great hardship, popular uprisings and inevitable collapse for about five years now.. and nothing has changed. So what is going on? Well.. I am old enough to remember seeing this sort of thing in the past. Some of you might remember how the same western mainstream media outlets were publishing tons of articles about Cuba was going to inevitably collapse in the 1990s. Do you emember how the North Koreans were going to rise up against their government in the 1990s? Or what about all those articles from last five years about how all senior officials under Kim Jong-un were going to overthrow him? And how DPRK could not make H-bombs and ICBMs.

Or what about all those photoshoots of abandoned town and factories in Russia from late 1990s and early 2000s which used to accompany articles predicting the imminent fragmentation and demise of that country? Who can forget all those articles in serious MSM outlets which have been predicting the collapse of Chinese economy since 1992 (earliest I remember) or how the The Communist Party of China was going to fall apart. And what about all those “serious journalists” who told their gullible readers that Iraq had WMDs and how “we” would win that war or the other one in Afghanistan. How have all these predictions by “experienced”, “credentialed” and “superior western presstitutes.. I mean journalists from “free” countries.. worked out?

Not well at all. In fact, during the period when the western MSM was doing all this “reporting” and making those predictions- things have been going from bad to worse in their own countries. It is USA, not Russia, that is now filled with abandoned factories and stranded ex-industrial towns. China, far from imploding, has become the largest economy (in real terms) and manufacturing superpower of the world. The Communist Party of China is still in firm control of that country and its economy. Cuba and DPRK are still around and the later has developed H-Bombs and ICBMs. Kim Jong-un is now seen as a tough, intelligent and competent leader. Iraq did not have WMDs and USA was unsuccessful in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan- though they had to spend a few trillion dollars to learn that lesson. And oh.. Trump was elected in the 2016 presidential election.

Meanwhile people in USA increasingly depend on cyber-begging platforms such as GoFundMe and its clones to pay their medical bills and even afford certain medical procedures. Most are poorly paid or have insecure jobs and live paycheck to paycheck, being unable to spend a few hundred dollars without going into debt. Monopolies, Oligopolies, Private Equity and other “legal” entities of late capitalism are busy destroying whatever is left of their livelihoods and financial security . And yet.. the public discourse centers around such important topics such as whether men who identify as woman are really women, whether losers who wear that wretched red cap are really racist and whether that orange-haired buffoon colluded with “Russia” and “Putin”.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 1

January 20, 2019 12 comments

Approximately three months ago, I wrote about my plans for a couple of series on topics which I had either not tackled or done in a less-than-through manner. In case you are wondering, one series would focus on the reasons why China became the world’s largest economy (in real terms) almost a decade ago while India is.. well.. stumbling around in that general direction. While most of the blame for dismal post-1947 performance of India can still be assigned to the first-, second- and third- order effects of the ‘jati’ system, there are clearly other factors at work- some of which are ‘intersectional’ to the continued existence of that wretched system. Let us start this series by examining them- starting with a comparison leadership cadre of both countries.

But before we go there, let me reiterate a few relevant points and spend the next 3-4 paragraphs giving you some background on the topic. As I wrote in a previous post, the majority of informed outsiders looking at the situation in both countries in 1950 would have put their money on India ending up as the more prosperous of two in 50-70 years. Yet in 2019, the Indian economy is still only 1/4th or 1/5th of its Chinese counterpart in real terms, despite containing an almost identical number of people. Did I mention that they started out at almost the same level in 1950. Let us also be clear that things had not gone well for over a century in either country at that time. In the case of India, it was a heavily exploited colony of now defunct British empire.

In the case of China, it was well.. a whole host of other problems. We can start with the various large and highly damaging rebellions towards the end of the Qing dynasty. One of these, known as the Taiping Rebellion, resulted in about 20-30 million deaths over a period of 14 years. Then there was the problem of western countries such as UK and USA pushing Opium in China which resulted in probably 20-40% of the population becoming dependent on that drug. There is some irony about tens of thousands of mostly white people dying from synthetic opioid overdoses, each year, in contemporary USA- given the major source of that drug. Add into that the humiliation caused by numerous military setbacks against 19th century European colonial powers culminating in the Boxer rebellion. And it got even worse in the early 20th century.

It started with the formal collapse of the Qing dynasty and lead to the Warlord Era– which was much worse than it sounds. And then there was that other unpleasant period due to the partial colonization by Imperial Japan, which culminated in events such as the Nanjing Massacre in addition to many millions more deaths due to that invasion, including many thousands due to activities of Unit 731. And we are not even getting into all the problems caused by on-again off-again alliance between various factions of the nationalists and communists in pre-1950 China. There is a very good reason that the Chinese see the hundred odd years between 1839-1949 as the Century of Humiliation. Long story short, China started from scratch after WW2. And we have not even talked about the Great Famine of 1959-1961 and the Cultural Revolution.

My point is that the modern nation states of India and China started at almost the same time (1947, 1949) and from about the same relative situation. Both had low literacy rates (12-15 % and 15-20 %), not much of an industrial base, very few universities and technical schools etc. Both experienced chaotic conditions during and shortly after their formation (India-Pakistan Partition, final stage of civil war on mainland China). Neither country had experienced unitary self-governance for over a hundred years. Most of the lay people in both countries still believed in tons of superstitions and bullshit. Long story short, both nation states started under equally dismal conditions. And yet in 2019, the economy and global stature of India is a fraction of China.

So let us now start talking about the types of people who ended up in leadership positions in both countries, starting with those involved in their respective independence movements.

The Indian “independence” movement, at least its modern form, can trace its origins to the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885. Ironically, it was established by a retired British civil service officer- Allan Octavian Hume. Think about it for a moment, the organisation which came to lead the Indian “independence” movement was not started by an Indian. But it gets better, or worse. Here is something many of you might know about many of the subsequent important leaders of the Indian “independence” movement.. most were the sons of people who had grown rich and powerful from enthusiastic collaboration with the British colonizers of India. Ya.. all those “great” leaders of the Indian “independence” moment were almost exclusively the sons of greedy and treacherous collaborators.

And most did not demand total independence until the early 1940s.. just varying degrees of autonomy from the now defunct British empire. And now you know why I decided to use quotation marks for independence. Sad.. isn’t it? And it gets worse.. if that is even possible. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, most leaders of the Indian “independence” movement were oxbridge educated lawyers with close to zero ability or experience to do anything beyond giving stirring speeches and writing elaborate letters in protest. They had a serious inferiority complex vis-à-vis white people in general and the British in particular. But most importantly, they simply wanted to rule instead of the British and had no real desire to improve the condition of most people in the country, and just wanted to be seen as equal to British on an individual level.

Now let us compare this sorry bunch to their equivalents in the Chinese national movement of early 20th century. Note that I am not implying that their Chinese equivalents were any less power-hungry, double-dealing, generally corrupt and sometimes thoughtless. But there are some very important and relevant differences between the two groups. For starters, most of their leadership did not arise from a group of traitors who collaborated with colonizers. Neither were most of their leaders born in very prosperous families. Sun Yat-sen, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek came from somewhat comfortable but not unusually rich or politically connected families. Even the second and third order leadership of the national movement was largely derived from people born into poor, middling to somewhat prosperous bourgeois families.

Furthermore, they all agreed that expulsion of foreign colonizers, restoration of unitary authority and building a new secular technological society was not negotiable. Compare this to their Indian counterparts who were fine with continuing caste divisions, widespread poverty, little to no economic development, low literacy, semi-independence etc as long as they were in power. Leaders of the Indian “independence” movement.. you see.. just wanted an equal seat at the table of their British masters so they could regale them with tales with how stupid and poor all those “other” Indian were and have a laugh about it. While it sounds harsh, this is how things went after 1947. The leadership of the Chinese national movement, on the other hand, understood that only leaders of powerful and prosperous nations wield true power.

This is why, for example, the government of post-1949 China put so much effort into improving literacy levels, setting up universities, funding research institutes, building their own weapon systems, investing in infrastructure projects etc- even when they technically did not have the “money” to do so. In contrast, multiple generations of Indian leaders used the excuse of “no money” to either not do those things or do them in an anemic and half-hearted manner. That is also why India retained the shitty colonial system of laws and administration which was designed to exploit and abuse Indians rather than build a new one to benefit them. The darkly comic part of all this is that most of them lack the ability to understand their own pathetic behavior.

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

What do you think? Comments?

Propaganda Provides an Excuse, Rather than Manufacturing Consent: 2

January 18, 2019 11 comments

In the previous part of this series, I said that the unspoken assumption underlying any belief in propaganda “working”, namely that human beings as a species are basically good, is wrong. Even a moderately objective look at history, or the world around you, easily demonstrates that most human beings have no moral compass, are incapable of reason, are deeply obsessed with their inevitable mortality and have a strong predilection for self-destruction. This assessment remains valid regardless of historical era, ethnicity, race, religion or any other division used by people to define their identity. In other words, the majority of human beings are, and have always been, pathetic and delusional creatures who usually lack the courage to act on their impulses.

And this where propaganda enters the picture. It provides an excuse or official sanction to act on their desires and impulses. But is there any real-life difference between how societies react to odious behavior with or without an “official” excuse or approval? Well.. let me illustrate with an example. A white american guy who enters a room (or two) and kills twenty primary-school aged children in USA is a horrible and despicable mass murderer- but if the same guy performed that particular act in some poor middle-eastern country, he is almost always portrayed as an upright soldier just doing his duty or perhaps suffering from “PTSD”. Events such as the My Lai Massacre or more recent ones in Afghanistan are more common than most believe.

Here is another example. What is the real difference between any top-level Nazi regime officials tried at Nuremberg show trials (after WW2) and people such as Curtis LeMay, Henry Kissinger, William Westmoreland, Bush 41, Bush43, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld- to name a few. In my opinion, the most importance difference between top Nazi era officials and their post-WW2 american equivalents is that the former wore far better looking uniforms. But why stop here? Ever wonder how the world would have reacted if Nazi Germany had won WW2? Here is a clue.. look at how the world has reacted to post-WW2 USA. My point is that we should not pretend that post-WW2 (or even pre-WW2) USA exists on a different “moral plane” than Nazi-era Germany, pre-1945 Japan, pre-WW2 UK and France or other 19th century colonial powers.

Still not convinced? Ask ten random people in USA what they think of China. Chances are most of them will say something about totalitarianism, hyper-capitalism, air pollution, alleged oppression of minorities, internet censorship and other assorted bullshit which they desperately want to believe. Oddly enough, almost none of them allow their minds to think about the history of their “own” country in an objective manner. Because, let us face it, USA was built by stealing land from its original inhabitants who were then conveniently genocided, its initial wealth was built, first using race-based slavery and then exploiting poor immigrants from other countries. But it gets better.. its global position in the 20th century was largely due it being not ravaged by WW1 and WW2. And in spite of claiming great military superiority, it has not won a single war since WW2.

In contrast to that, China was able to reach its current position as the largest global economy (in real terms) of the early 21st century without stealing land from other people, without slavery and in spite of having to start from scratch in aftermath of partial Japanese occupation (pre-1945) which was preceded by the century of humiliation by white colonial powers. Moreover, the bulk of that development occurred within the previous forty years. By any objective criteria, China and its people have achieved in 40-50 years what the USA took overt two centuries- and have done so with far fewer negative externalities. They have also achieved that outcome with far less social and economic inequality when compared to USA for most of its history.

My point is that most people believe whatever they want to believe, and most are incapable of objective thinking and reason. Let me further explain that concept with three more (long-form) examples. They are as follows: 1] Rise and fall of Nazism and personality cult of Hitler in 1933-1945 era Germany. 2] Rise and fall of american public support for the Vietnam War and 3] The rise and ongoing fall of neoliberal worldview in the ‘west’. As some might remember, I have written a few posts about the first issue in past, such as: how high unemployment was linked to rise of Nazi party in Germany and similarities between those who joined the Nazi party and contemporary careerists. I have also written a few post about neoliberalism and will therefore start by focusing on the american misadventure in Vietnam, which ended in a humiliating defeat.

Let me begin this part by asking you a few simple questions. Why did barely 20% of Americans think that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake as late as mid-1966? Why did approval for that war drop so quickly between 1967 and 1969? But perhaps, most curiously, why did almost 30% of americans think that the war was not a mistake as late as 1972-1973? The first question is probably the easiest to answer. Most people will support incredibly bad and dangerous ideas as long as they don’t have skin in the game and think they can get away with it. As late as 1966, the number of young american men drafted in that war was barely about 200,000 and most did not experience any significant risk during their tour of duty. Furthermore, their adversaries were asian- a group largely seen as subhuman by white americans.

So what caused this shift in public attitudes? While the conventional narrative ‘Tet Offensive’ did a lot of damage to public image of american forces in Vietnam, it was (in retrospective) just one of the many factors which caused that shift. A far bigger reason was the rapid increase in number of young men drafted for that war after 1966. Some of you might wonder as why the Korean war (1950-1953), whose final casualty figures were pretty close to the one on Vietnam, did not result in a similar shift in public attitudes. Well.. there are two reasons. Firstly, it was just five years after WW2 and the numbers looked small in comparison. Secondly, the part of that war which involved heavy fighting was much shorter (if far more intense) than in Vietnam. Short intense wars have always been far easier to justify than long drawn-out conflicts.

Which brings us to the most peculiar of the three questions. Why did upto a third of the american public believe that the Vietnam war was not a mistake, as late as 1973? Wasn’t it pretty obvious that the war had been a costly failure by then? In my opinion, this comes down to their complete unwillingness and inability to think in anything approaching a rational manner. As I wrote in a previous series, WW1 and WW2 got rid of a lot of reactionary and CONservative men in Europe and Japan- but the late entry of USA in both wars as well as fairly low casualties in the theaters they were deployed did not get rid of most idiots. In other words, USA has (and had) far more living reactionary and CONservative idiots than Europe and many other countries.

The point I am trying to make is that propaganda does not really change minds or worldviews. It merely provides “official” external validation and cover for bad, stupid and disastrous ideas. This also means that any ideology which assumes that most human beings are intrinsically good or thoughtful is fundamentally flawed. Similarly, arguing or debating racists and other types of assorted assholes in good faith is a total waste of your time. Only death or the fear of certain death has, historically, demonstrated the ability to change terms of discourse about fundamental differences in opinion. Nazism lost popular appeal only after most of its supporters got killed in, or in the immediate aftermath of, WW2. The same is true for all those other odious pre-1945 ideas about racial superiority and colonialism in the ‘west’.

In the next part, I will write about how the majority of people will often support other amazingly bad and disastrous ideas if they feel they can get away with doing so.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jan 16, 2019

January 16, 2019 5 comments

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

Amateur Topless Cuties on the Beach: Jan 3, 2019 – Pairs of young topless cuties on the beach.

Doggystyled Amateurs: Jan 10, 2019 – Amateur cuties taking it, doggystyle.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage: 6

January 14, 2019 21 comments

In the previous post of this series, I put forth the idea that many behavioral oddities of women in dying ‘west’ make sense once you accept the hypothesis that they have internalized the capitalist belief system. The logical conclusion of that assumption is that treating them better than they are treating you will always be a losing proposition. In any case, pretty much all everything they are supposedly offering (other than sex) is an insipid simulacra of the original. To make a long story short, a relationshit is now a significantly and visibly inferior product than using escorts. I went on to write that there were other experiences, and cumulative changes in my worldview, during the 2005-2009 timespan which finally resulted in my choosing the escort-only path.

As some of you will notice, what I am about to write next has an interesting connection with the topic of another previous post. So.. what changed between 2005 and 2009? Let me explain that by describing an incident which illustrates both the process and direction of change. In mid-2006, I got to know a woman who was from a country bordering the Adriatic arm of Mediterranean Sea. She worked at some place which I frequented at that time and we got talking about a variety of things. Anyway.. she was married, but was vocal about the lack of future in that relationship. Tt helped that she was fairly young and attractive. Eventually, we went out a couple of times.

So far.. this story this sounds very boring and conventional- and it would have remained so if my worldview and attitudes had not changed over all those preceding years. To make a long story short (again), I quickly realized that she had a very specific man in her mind for cheating on her husband. She wanted a guy with a fairly specific look, height, accent, ancestry etc. Let me put it this way.. she wanted what some in “manosphere” would describe as a rich alpha- don’t they all. And then I decided to do something which I had not done on that scale and for that purpose. I slowly and methodically destroyed her mental justifications for imagining that she had a chance with such a guy. But here is the real kicker, I did it for my entertainment.

Upon realizing, quite early on, that she wanted to friendzone me- I decided to convert that ‘lost opportunity’ into some diabolical entertainment. That required me to first sit through all of her stupid chatter about what she wanted in her ‘deserved upgrade’. After making a few mental notes while smiling, I politely concluded the first meeting. A week or so later, she expressed a desire to meet again and I was happy to oblige. The second meeting went.. a bit differently. It started, as usual by me being polite and non-specific, till she brought up that issue again. I then started by playfully posing a simple and apparently question- why should the man of her dreams (for the purposes of cheating) choose her over chicks for having sex? And she took the bait..

She started by listing her non-physical attributes such as education, culture, intelligence etc. I asked her as to why she believed that those attributes carried weight in a relationship which was almost totally physical. She then tried to claim that her physical attributes were also pretty good. I pointed out that any guy with the specifications she required could easily get a more attractive woman 5-7 years younger than her to have sex with him. You see where this going.. She then claimed that she was willing to settle down with such a guy (offer of commitment) I countered by pointing out that any guy who could easily get an attractive woman 5-10 years younger than him was certainly not looking to settle down- especially with an inferior product.

And it gets better.. She then claimed that I was saying all those things because I “could not have her”. I asked her to explain whether she meant that “I wanted her” or “I wanted a woman, any woman”. She said she thought it was both. I acted surprised and told her that it was far easier for me to pay very attractive and capable escorts by the hour- and proceed to show her a few photos of them on my iPAQ handheld (remember this is 2006). She then tried to say that using escorts was immature and they did not love their customers etc. I then pointed out that we had spent a lot of time talking about her desire to cheat on her husband with a hunk, and that invalidated her talk about relationshits being real or worthwhile. All in a calm manner and with a straight face.

After a long awkward silence a bit of small talk, we parted ways and I never talked to her again. The coffee cost about four bucks, but the entertainment value was much.. much more. So.. why did I remember and mention this meeting? After all, this was hardly the first time I utilized the inconsistencies of women’s behavior to poke fun at them. In fact, I had been pointing out such issues for many years prior to this incident. For example- as early as 1999, I would make short and quick comments which ridiculed the preference of asian chicks for pathetic white guys to the face of the former. I had also previously done significantly milder versions of what is described in this post. But there was a difference, you see.. I was just doing it to rib them a bit, nothing more.

The incident described in this post was the first time that I went into a meeting like that with the sole intention of systematically mocking and insulting a person to the point that it would burn all bridges. I was not doing it to “neg” her or anything along those lines and I would have rejected sex even if she had proposed it. My mood at that time can be best described by a line from a 2008 movie.. “some men just want to watch the world burn”- and it felt awesome. In the next part of this series, I will go into other similar interactions during that timespan. Hopefully, we will also talk about why going scorched earth on some people is totally worth it and carries no real risk- the key word being some. And yes.. there are criteria to put people into that category.

What do you think? Comments?

Using the Accusation of Racism is Always Superior to Keeping Quiet: 1

January 10, 2019 15 comments

One of the many issues on which I strongly disagree with most older non-white people living in the “west” concerns how racism (ambient, casual or specific) should be handled. A large number of these older people, especially from certain countries, seem to believe that accepting overt or not-so-overt racist behavior from the now rapidly aging and declining white populace in western countries is the best default response. These pathetic losers justify such behavior by deluding themselves into believing a number of BS memes such as “this situation won’t change anytime soon”, “it has been always like that” or something along those lines. Some even believe that they kinda deserve it or believe they can get ahead by validating the racist mindset of white idiots.

Luckily, this mental affliction (at least its more severe forms) appears to be largely restricted to non-whites above a certain age. I am sure that some of you will point to the ratio of WMAF to AMWF couples, and we will go into that issue later. But for now, let us focus on how the previous paragraph relates to the topic of this post. In my opinion, it all comes down to a behavior that is especially common among older non-whites and is intimately linked to their willingness to accept racist behavior. More specifically, they do not actively confront self-identifying whites who display such attitudes and behaviors or protest adverse portrayal of non-whites. But why not and what is behind this passivity? And this is where we start getting into more controversial areas.

Let me start this part by asking you a simple question. What motivates people more- the fear of losing what they have or the hope of future gain? If you have read enough history, hopefully from a number of diverse sources, and looked at the world around you- it is obvious that the hope of future gain is a far bigger motivator than fear of loss. Think about it.. slavery (at least the version practiced in Americas) was driven by fear of loss and yet for all its brutality, it could not produce much more than cotton, coffee and sugarcane. Similarly, communist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s in spite of them being harsh totalitarian systems because the fear of loss, is at best, temporary. Meanwhile, the communist party of China is still in power largely because it could provide real opportunities for profit and better life for its citizens.

But what does this have to with acceptance of racism by older non-whites who live in western countries? Well.. ask yourself, why would they accept it at the subconscious level? Fear of loss or hope of gain? Clearly, it has always been the later than the former. However, if you posed this question to them, they might tell you it was the former rather than the later. But why? Well.. it comes down to maintaining their internal self-image. Remember that everyone wants to believe that they are good, brave and moral. Acknowledging that they allow racism in the hope of future gain sounds much more sad and pathetic than claiming they do so in fear of loss. It is about maintaining an internal self-image which is at odds with one’s behavior and actions.

Don’t believe me? Look at how many actors of Indian descent (Kal Penn, Kunal Nayyar) have been willing to play brown-face characters in films and TV shows. Have you ever wondered why somebody would degrade themselves by playing such characters? I mean.. nobody is holding a gun to their head to make them play those parts. Nor are they starving and desperate for any source of income, however demeaning it may be. Or take most stand-up comics of Indian descent, who until a couple of years ago, largely focused on the alleged shortcomings of their own ethnic group rather than satirize white culture and behaviors. Long story short, willingness of older non-whites to accept racism has always been driven by hope of gain rather than fear of loss.

But in case you still believe otherwise, let us go through a few specific categories of behavior..

1] Some older non-whites believe that pointing out racism will adversely affect their opportunities for future career advancement. But is that so? Think about it.. do you really expect someone who perceives you as less than human to ever treat you fairly, let alone as an equal? My point is that a racist will always be a totally unreliable employer or highly problematic colleague. Also, racists remain so until they are dead. Furthermore, the transient nature of most jobs today and lack of defined career paths removes any vestigial excuses for tolerating such behavior. To put it another way, there is not much left to lose. Of course, the right way to go about this involves avenues other than reporting it to the subhuman scum who populate HR department of corporations.

2] Some non-whites appear to believe that accepting racism or even participating in criticism of their ethnicity or race will somehow make then “honorary” whites. This is similar to CONservative minded blacks who believe that racists can tell the difference between them and.. you know. The reality is that any person who harbors racist belief is incapable and unwilling to see “those others” as anything other than stereotypes. At best, these non-white morons (who seek acceptance) are providing free entertainment for aging racist losers. I have written a few posts about such people in the past- On Brown House Slaves, Gungadins and Sepoys, My Views on “Wannabe Whites”, The Inner World of Massey Sahibs : An Introduction and The Inner World of Massey Sahibs: 2.

3] Now let us take this one step further and imagine a situation where a pathetic non-white who accepted racism was somehow able to translate it into a decent career and partial acceptance by racist whites. How is such an existence any different from that of a pet dog? Sure.. a loser might rationalize this as ‘not that bad’ or something along those lines. But is that really the case? Are you really going to be happy waiting for somebody else to throw a few table scraps of pseudo social acceptance? Are you going to be happy to be with some badly aged, washed out and psychologically damaged white chick? My point is that only stupid losers believe that they have no other choice than being self-hating house slaves who look forward to table scraps and crave acceptance from subhumans who see them as their perpetual inferiors.

Will write next part of this series based on the comments to this post.

What do you think? Comments?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is Exposing IQ Measurement as Scientific Fraud

January 4, 2019 12 comments

Over past few days, one of the more interesting Twitter controversies which I have been closely following started with Nassim Nicholas Taleb (henceforth referred to as NNT) firing off a series of tweets about how IQ is a pseudoscientific swindle perpetrated by a bunch of charlatans.. I mean psychologists.. on a credulous public. In case you still don’t know who he is, NNT is one of those rare guys with very good grounding in mathematics (especially statistics) who also happened to have made a lot of money on the stock market and in finance. To make a long story short, he has had tons of fuck-you money for decades, is often contrarian and does not suffer fools well. NNT has also written bestsellers books such as Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets and The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.

You can read a summary of his original tweet-storm on the topic in a recent Medium post titled- IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle. In it, he makes a number of points starting with the fact that IQ as a test originally came into existence as a “scientific way” to identify kids with mental retardation, rather than a way to identify people who are smart. He then makes the point that it ‘selects’ for people who are good exam-takers, future paper shufflers, obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots) ill adapted for real life. He goes on to point out that the biggest promoters of IQ are a] racists who want to “prove” that certain racial or ethnic groups are somehow inferior to them and b] psychologists and associated professionals whose livelihood depends on many people taking such tests or that test being considered a valid measure of intelligence. He then goes on to show that measured IQ (by any method) has very poor correlation with real world success.

Along the way NNT exposes the various fallacies, mathematical problems and often plain logical issues with using IQ scores as a measure of intelligence. For example, he shows that measured IQ scores exhibit pretty poor correlation with SAT scores- though they are usually thought to be tightly linked. NNT also show how apparently medium degrees of correlation are more statistical noise than correlation. He also points out that there is a logical problem in making a correlation between a Gaussian function (IQ measurements) while real life performance (fat-tailed). NNT also talks about the problem of negative correlation- basically how many people with a high IQ score end up working menial and mediocre paid jobs while those who average scores end up being far more successful or rich. And he blasts psychologists at every step.

Finally he goes through a list of common objections and bullshitting employed by psychologists and other believers in IQ to deflect criticism about that topic. As many of you might have guessed by now, his tweet-storm as well as habit of being confrontational generated hilarious responses from defenders of IQ scores- from charlatans such as Charles Murray, Razib “I hate being brown” Khan and a bevy of other “famous” psychologists as well as assorted racist fuckwits such as Stefan Molyneux. I find it amusing how all of these sad losers are responding to NNT dismantling the mathematical basis for their bullshit and lies. Then again, what else can you expect? But it is fun to watch, nonetheless. As some of you might remember, I too have written many posts which made some of the same points NNT is making- and it is nice to see them vindicated.

A couple of examples. In one of his tweets, NNT makes the point that whatever IQ is measuring cannot be very important since it was not selected by evolutionary pressures– and here is me making that point in 2012. In his Medium post and some tweets, NNT makes the point that ‘high IQ’ is associated with good exam-takers, paper shufflers and other obedient IYIs (intellectuals yet idiots). Here is one of my post making a similar argument in 2012. To quickly summarize, NNT has torn new and big holes into the sad scam of measuring IQ score and trying correlating them with real world success- financial or otherwise. I have long made similar arguments about the sad losers who believe in IQ scores and the lack of connection of such scores with real life success.

What do you think? Comments?