Archive

Author Archive

Timeline of Stefan Halper’s Insertion into Trump Presidential Campaign

May 30, 2018 2 comments

Over the past two-three weeks, corporate MSM outlets have been shouting from the rooftops that the Obama administration and deep state did not spy on Trump’s presidential campaign- even when it is clearly obvious that they did so. Even worse, the guy involved has a history of being involved in such “unofficial” intelligence operations. To be more specific, Stefan Halper was a central character in a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Ronald Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush. And yes, he got caught that time too.

So we have a spy of mediocre ability with strong ties to the Bush family was miraculously sent to “investigate” the Trump presidential campaign after it became that Jeb Bush was unlikely to win the republican presidential ticket. What an amazing coincidence! And yes, he got involved in spying on the Trump campaign at least a few weeks before George Papadopoulos drunkenly boasted to an Australian diplomat about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. And this brings us the question of who was involved in giving him the order to start spying? and why? I was going to write a medium length post about it. Then I came across a recent clip on The Jimmy Dore ShowYouTube channel which pretty much says what I was going to write anyway.

What do you think? Comments?

Kim Jong-un is Succeeding in Making South Korea Decouple from USA

May 25, 2018 6 comments

In a previous post about my thoughts on Kim Jong-un’s real motivations behind wanting to meet Trump, I wrote that DPRK wants to use the almost certain failure of such a meeting (if it were to even occur) to show that they, and not the USA, are the rational party. I made the point that the target audience for their display are people in South Korea, not USA. As I also wrote in that post, this is part of a clever multi-step strategy to drive a wedge between South Korea and USA. As of yesterday, it appears that the meeting is highly unlikely to occur on June 12. Of course, there is always the chance that it might still occur.. though I would not hold my breath in anticipation.

Here is a reminder of what I wrote on this point in my previous post on this topic..

Then next step for driving a wedge between them requires DPRK to put forth conditions for an agreement whose terms are perfectly acceptable to South Korea but will never be accepted by USA (even if they initially appear to be willing). We should therefore see the latest diplomatic overtures by Kim Jong-un as part of a strategy where he offers basically everything necessary for South Korea to accept the agreement but with just enough sticking points to be rejected by USA. That way, Kim Jong-un appears as the stable and reasonable person willing to deal with other countries such as South Korea while USA looks like some out-of-touch old white guy still living in the 1950s.

In any case, the game that DPRK is playing will work regardless of whether the meeting occurs or not. They know that the prevailing stance of american establishment towards their regime basically guarantees that such a meeting would fail even to achieve any substantive progress, even if it were to occur. Between their hate for Trump and sad delusions of white power, the american establishment is out of touch with anything approaching reality. As we have seen with the Iran Deal, the level of infighting, delusions of grandeur and sheer hubris among members of the american establishment are quite capable of sinking anything approaching a plausible and rational deal. Furthermore, this pathology is so embedded in the psyche of both older proles and establishment in USA, that it will probably last as long as they do.

Once again, to refresh your memory, this is what I wrote about it in my previous post..

They have figured out that different parts of the government in USA, such as the legislatures, can and will derail any agreement just because the D-grade actors within them like to “act tough” for the credulous idiots who voted for them. They are fully aware of the extent to which decisions made by legislators are controlled by corporate donors, especially from the military-industrial complex. In other words, DPRK understands that anything short of complete and utter capitulation by them is unacceptable to most cliques in the american government. But, they also know that many in South Korea are willing to sign an agreement with far more realistic terms.

And this brings us the question as to why DPRK issued such a nice and polite response to Trump cancelling the upcoming meeting. Here is a hint.. their main target audience is in South Korea. They are just making sure that everyone in South Korea and other relevant countries such as China, Russia etc can see that they are the rational party willing to enter into negotiations to make a realistic deal. In contrast, the almost predictable actions by Trump and his clique of neocon chicken-hawks make them look like delusional and irrational warmongers, especially in the wake of them also exiting the Iran deal. It also helps that Trump’s decision to cancel the meeting without providing any significant warning to the South Korean president makes him look weak to his own citizens in addition to being highly insulting.

But perhaps, more importantly, it makes it painfully clear to South Koreans that USA has no interest in helping solve this problem. It also confirms their suspicions that the USA is willing to start some stupid misadventure which could spiral into nuclear war on the Korean peninsula, for no reason other than to mollify its ego. And the best part, as far as DPRK is concerned, is that Trump and his clique of neocons are doing such a great job by unwittingly acting out their parts in the script. To make a long story short, the behavior of Trump and the american establishment leaves no real option for South Koreans than to start decoupling from USA and start mending their fences with DPRK. In case you are wondering, the only other option is a war which will result in the death of millions in South Korea.

DPRK might be half a world away from mainland USA, but it is next to South Korea. While the average person in USA can afford, at least at this moment, to pretend that they would not be affected in the event of war on the Korean peninsula, his or her counterpart in South Korea knows for a fact that they will have to pay a very high price for such an occurrence. Hence, South Koreans are far more interested in finding a way to peacefully co-exist with their counterparts in DPRK than people in USA. The recent charm offensive by Kim Jong-un in combination with the unrealistic and erratic behavior of Trump and the rest of the american establishment just make it far easier for South Koreans to start decoupling their foreign policy from that of USA. And decouple they will.. even if takes a year or two to start noticing the change.

What do you think? Comments?

How Elliot Rodger Became the Archetypal ‘Incel’ Rampage Killer

May 23, 2018 24 comments

As some of you might know, today (May 23rd) is the fourth anniversary of Elliot Rodger’s killing spree in Isla Vista. Elliot was the inspiration for Alek Minassian’s recent infamous drive through Toronto- something I have written about recently (link 1, link 2). Those of you who frequent 4chan, 8chan and certain other parts of the internet must also be aware that Elliot Rodger has a pretty large and still growing name recognition in those regions- which is odd considering he killed himself immediately after committing that rampage killing. So how does a guy whose final body count did not even touch double digits become such a major cultural icon after his death? To make matters more interesting, Elliot Rodger was hardly the only ‘incel’ rampage killer in USA within the last decade.

As I have pointed out in a previous post, the majority of men who go on killing sprees in USA are either completely or functionally incel. And yes, I know about the few prominent exceptions such as Stephen Paddock and Omar Mateen. The vast majority of rampage killers in USA such as Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Nikolas Cruz, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and Dimitrios Pagourtzis had abysmal luck with finding female companionship for years prior to their rampage. In fact, with the possible exception of men who went on killing rampages for religious reasons, almost every one had a history of sexual rejection from women. Yet for some reason, Elliot Rodger has had a far bigger cultural impact than men with many times his body count. But why?

Part of answer to that mystery is alluded to in the picture posted above. To refresh your memory, it is a screen shot from one of the YouTube videos he uploaded before his rampage in which he talks about the many reasons he was angry with women of his age and wanted to kill them. To make a long story short, he was a half-white/half-asian who was born into a rich family who was extremely unlucky with women through a combination of his shyness, his perceived non-white status and a family that pretty much ignored his emotional needs. But those videos were only a small part of what assured his posthumous and still growing fame.

The single biggest factor which has made Elliot Rodger famous, and the archetype for ‘incel’ rampage killer, was his long and very well written manifesto. In it, he describes in great detail the conditions and circumstances of his upbringing and environment that led him to do what he finally did. Do read it, if you have not done so already. It is that manifesto, more than any other thing, which made Elliot Rodger the cultural icon he has become since his death. And one more thing.. Elliot Rodger was perhaps the first rampage killer to methodically and explicitly make the connection between being consistently rejected by women and forced to be incel with his actions.

Elliot Rodger was the first self-identified incel rampage killer in our era, though Marc Lepine sorta said something similar in 1989. Of course, Marc Lepine suicide statement was much shorter than Elliot Rodger’s one hundred and eight thousand word production and the public internet did not exist in 1989. Furthermore, incel-dom was far less common in North America in 1989 than in 2014 or 2018. To put it another way, Elliot Rodger’ cultural impact is a combination of what he did and when he did it. And yes, I have written a few posts about him in the past (link 3, link 4, link 5). Curiously, most normies dismissed his manifesto at that time. The course of events, however, had other plans and his manifesto quickly became a staple of internet culture.

And that is the short version of how Elliot Rodger became a cultural icon of our era. You can try to mock him, ignore him, defame him.. and it won’t matter. The fact of the matter is that he has become far more famous and influential in death than he was in life. If it sounds like something one might say about a saint or religious figure, you are half-right because Elliot Rodger has sorta become the patron saint of incels. And just like other religious figures and martyrs from the past, those who have read his manifesto harbor a very different image of him from those who have not done so. To be clear, I am not suggesting that we will see a church of Elliot Rodger anytime soon, but the magnitude of cultural effect he has had is equally undeniable.

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on ‘Incels’ and Alleged Public Reactions Towards Them: 4

May 21, 2018 12 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made a point that the aftermath of WW1 created a lot of socio-economic instability in Europe which resulted in leaders like Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler (in addition to many other similar less famous ones) assuming power. But have you ever wondered how these men came to power in the first place? I mean.. who supported these leaders anyway? And what does any of this have to do with ‘incels’ in 2018?

As it turns out, a lot. To understand what I talking about, we have to first talk a bit about why WW1 (and WW2) were so different from any wars before them- not just in sheer scale but also their timing and impact on society. The ‘timing’ aspect of both WW1 and WW2 is often glossed over by most historians because the subject matter does not sell as many books or lectures as military descriptions of those wars. So why is their timing important anyway?

Well.. for starters, the era from 1880-1910 was marked by a very significant change in kind of jobs and livelihoods available to most men in European countries. While the industrial revolution might have begun decades earlier, it was not until the 1880s-1890s that it started to change the spectrum of jobs available to most men in those countries. We often forget that majority of ‘jobs’ in those countries were related to agriculture, as late as the 1870s- even in western Europe.

But what effect did this have on those affected by this transition? Some of you know part of the answer, which is birth of the modern labor movement. The other part is however less talked about. The short version is that the change of ‘jobs’ and livelihoods from farm to city resulted in a lot of social dislocation and growth of instability. A rapid increase in number of non-agricultural jobs during that era did however keep a lid on that problem, at least for the time being. And then WW1 started in 1914.

As many of you know, WW1 was the really the first large-scale war in which every major participant nation-state mobilized its citizenry and ended up instituting military conscription. By the end of that war, millions of soldiers on all sides had died or were permanently disabled. But even more problematically, many millions more came back to countries, societies and livelihoods which had ceased to exist. To put it another way, soldiers who returned ‘home’ after WW1 came back to communities and livelihoods which had changed beyond their ability to adapt.

It did not help that post-WW1 austerity type economic measures in many countries and the increased mechanization of work created tons of young and poor men without any real prospects for a better future. Now combine this with the visceral contempt many felt for all those old-fashioned regimes and social structures who were responsible for WW1. It does not take a genius to figure out that the massive young male precariat created by WW1 looked around for new leaders who could promise them a better future.

And this brings us why the October Revolution in 1917 allowed the Bolsheviks to displace the provincial government and all moderates. As you might have figured out by now, the Bolsheviks had far more wiling young men and weapons than their opponents. The sheer number of willing young men and weapons was also why the Bolsheviks won the almost 5-year long Russian Civil War in 1922. And yes, the civil war did resulted in the death of a few million people- but in the end the Bolsheviks won, Lenin assumed formal leadership and USSR was formed in 1923.

Let us now talk about how Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922. For somebody who literally created the concept of Fascism, it is interesting that Mussolini started out as a socialist. While the many twists in his life until the end of WW1 are too numerous to document here, the relevant part is that he became a well-known populist leader towards end of WW1. It certainly helped that the previous government and system in Italy had lost public support because of its many failures during WW1, even though they came out on the “winning” side.

Long story short, Mussolini correctly assessed the extent of public dissatisfaction with the existing system and took steps to gain power culminating in the March on Rome in 1922. And yes, the core supporters who stood behind him and helped him seize power were young men who had come back ‘home’ after fighting in WW1. As you will see, young men who fought in WW1 and came back to a displaced existence without a decent future somehow always ended up supporting a leader (almost always an outsider) who would promise them a better future.

Which brings us to the issue of how Hitler came to power in Germany. As some of you know, post-WW1 Germany was a hot mess. For one, terms of the Treaty of Versailles had caused a series of massive economic problems in Germany. The lack of perceived public authority and impotence of successive governments in the Wiemar republic combined with their inability to do help all those young men who returned ‘home’ after WW1 had created a huge population of young men who wanted to overthrow the current system.

Again, to make a long story short, the absolutely dismal reputation of the Wiemar republic along with the massive economic stresses caused by the great depression made a person like Hitler look like a reasonable option to the German public in 1933. Of course, the core and most loyal supporters of Hitler came from the ranks of soldiers who had fought in WW1. It is therefore no surprise that all the organisations which enabled Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, such as the Sturmabteilung, Nazi Party, Schutzstaffel and their precursors such as the Freikorps, were almost exclusively made up of young veterans of WW1.

Will write more about how all this relates to the current status quo in the next part of this series. Here is a hint.. history may not repeat, but if often rhymes.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: May 19, 2018

May 19, 2018 1 comment

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

Amateur Doggystyled Cuties: May 10, 2018 – Amateur cuties taking it, doggystyle.

Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: May 19, 2018 – Amateur cuties doing it, reverse cowgirl style.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Thoughts on ‘Incels’ and Alleged Public Reactions Towards Them: 3

May 15, 2018 39 comments

In my previous and graph-heavy post in this series, I made a few inter-related points. Firstly, there has indeed been an unusually large increase in the percentage of young single men who report having no sexual partners each year within the last decade. Perhaps more importantly, this increase in incel-dom is largely confined to young single men, which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that young single women in same age group are likely sharing male partners (single or otherwise). It is also hard to overlook that this peculiar increase in rates of male incel-dom started at around the same time as the mainstreaming of internet dating and introduction of smartphones (starting mid- to late- 2000s).

Secondly, there is something interesting going on with the effect of race on rate of male incel-dom in USA. For starters, the rates of incel-dom in young non-white non-black (‘other’) men are almost twice those seen in their white or black counterparts. We do not see a similar pattern when comparing white, black and non-white non-black women. Why not? Also, do almost 40% of young non-white non-black single men have no sexual partner each year? Who are their female counterparts having sex with? Perhaps, it is therefore not surprising that the two poster boys of the so-called ‘incel’ rebellion (Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian) were neither white nor black?

Some of you might want to believe that this general and sustained increase in incel-dom among young men is a consequence of the decade-long financial crisis which started in 2008.. and there is some merit to the idea that young men with poorly paid and unstable jobs might not be seen as good candidates for marriage or long-term relationships. This should, however, theoretically not affect their suitability as sexual partners in casual or transient relationships. And yet it seems to! Curiously, the ongoing great financial crisis has not exhibited any worthwhile negative impact on the ability of young women to get laid. And this in an era where the percentage of young men and women in the workforce are almost identical.

The point I am trying to make is that the real rates of incel-dom in young men (living in North America) are significantly higher than those of women in their age group- in addition to being markedly higher that recent historical norms. While there is clearly a racial element in that non-white non-black men seem to be the most affected by this trend, there is clearly enough male sexlessness to go around. So.. what is going on? It is not as if society has suddenly become sexually conservative or number of venues for meeting potential sexual partners has gone down. In fact, the opposite is true and society today is less sexually conservative than before and number of venues (especially online) for meeting potential sexual partners has increased over previous ten years.

In the first part of this series, I made the point that conventional “common sense” attempts to address or solve this problem were guaranteed to be dangerous and highly counterproductive. I hope you are beginning to see why that would be so. For starters, the number and percentage of functionally incel young men in the population of USA is high enough that any attempt to identify or crack down on such men might be problematic.. to put it lightly. Making enemies out of over ten million young men is never a smart idea. But it gets worse.. much worse.

Many of you might have come across a number of articles, videos and podcasts (since Alex Minassian’s ride) which purport to highlight the “rampant misogyny”, “blatant sexism” and “open racism” prevalent in online ‘incel’ communities. Some of you might have also come across idiots.. I mean “experts” who suggest that we should “do something” about these incel “terrorists”. Well.. here is a newsflash for them. The aggregate of all online incel communities constitute an almost infinitesimally small percentage of young men who are functionally incel. Yes, you heard that right! Self identified incels account for less than 2% of those who are in that situation.

And this leads to two major problems with any attempts to address that issue. To understand what I am talking about next, let me ask you a simple question: how are the 98-99% of incels who are not part of the online incel scene coping with their loneliness? The simple, if unpleasant answer, to that question is that a combination of hoping against hope, online porn and then a gradual disengagement from society as it exists. It is important to note that regardless of their initial levels of hope they will end up disengaging from current social status quo. To be clear, I am not talking about MGTOW- at least its more well-known forms. I am talking about a scenario where a significant minority of men have no desire to maintain, let alone defend, the status quo.

But why does that matter? Won’t the almighty apparatus of modern nation states just keep on working. Well.. not quite. Large dynamic systems, such as modern societies and nations, are far more susceptible to the cumulative effects of slow-motion collapse from internal discontent than external aggression. To make a long explanation short, the ability of modern nation states to weather a host of inevitable and periodic external and internal problems is heavily linked to the willingness of its population to be cohesive and sacrifice for the “common good”. Such systems can remain reasonably functional only as long as enough people have faith in the ability of system to deliver a better future. As I have previously pointed out, the incel problem is way bigger and more widespread than idiots attempting to address it can imagine. In other words, it is not fixable within the current status quo and will only get worse with the passage of time.

If enough people lose faith, the system starts hollowing out from the inside and becomes exquisitely sensitive to internal and external problems. Many former state-communist regimes of eastern Europe collapsed quickly in the late 1980s and early 1990s because it became obvious to its common members that the system could not deliver on most of its promises. Conversely, the communist part regime in China is still going strong because it could deliver on most of its promises. Never forget that most people care far more about the delivery of material benefits, goods and services than lofty philosophical bullshit. And this is the second issue with any attempt to solve the incel problem.. the status quo is simply unwilling to deliver the necessary goods or services.

But what does any of this have to do with incels in north american societies? Well.. a lot. As I previously showed you, the sheer numbers and percentages of such men are far larger than counting the aggregate membership in some online communities would suggest. Also, every incel or mostly incel guy past their mid-20s is one more person who has no desire to prop up, let alone sacrifice for, the status quo. There is a reason so many male-centric movements from MRA, MGTOW, ‘Game’ and Jordan Peterson fanboys to all those online communities which outwardly have nothing to with incel-dom have flourished in the past ten years.

It does not take a genius to figure out that any political or social movement which succeeds in tapping into the desire of this substantial category of men to ‘see the world burn’ would be very likely cause irreversible destabilization of current status quo. If you think I am exaggerating, read a bit about how people like Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler etc got their core supporters. Here is a hint.. WW1 created a whole generation of poor, angry, frustrated and underemployed ex-soldiers in many countries. History may not repeat, but it often rhymes.

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on ‘Incels’ and Alleged Public Reactions Towards Them: 2

May 11, 2018 13 comments

I was trying to write another 1000-word article to continue onwards from the previous one in this series, when I came across a set of interesting graphical representations about the extent of involuntary celibacy in the 22-35 age group (non-married) in USA. Well.. it seems that the rates of incel-dom are a bit higher than most people would like to imagine, even in an age group who should under ideal conditions have the lowest percentage of incels. But that is not the most interesting part of these graphical representations..

Well.. have a look at the first one below. Notice anything peculiar? So why is the percentage of male incels almost twice that of female incels? And why is so high at over 14%? And why did they diverge so much starting sometime around 2007-2008? Does it also not suggest that non-incel women are sharing guys? I mean.. how else do you account for the peculiar gap between percentages for men and women? BTW, here is the original link for that graph.

Anyway, let us move on the next set of graph (below) which shows an even more interesting piece of information. Did you notice that percentage of incel females of ‘other’ races has kept on going down over the year to reach levels seen in ‘white’ and ‘black’ group? But wait.. why has the percentage of male ‘incels’ of other races increased to over 30%? and why did that trend start around 2007-2008? Here is the link to original source.

This data got me thinking and digging even deeper to find similar data. Thankfully, I did not have to dig too far. Have a look at a set of graphs (below) containing a more detailed analysis of incel-dom by race. Once again, you can see that about 40% of single men in the 22-35 age group who are neither ‘white’ nor black’ are functionally incel. Their female counterparts have pretty low rates of incel-dom, and are comparable to ‘white’ and ‘black’ women. In other words, a lot of ‘non-white’ and ‘non-black’ women are getting it on with ‘white’ and ‘black’ men. And here is the link to original source.

To be fair, none of this should come as a surprise to anybody who has spent time in certain parts of the internet or has walked around the nicer urban areas of coastal USA. I mean.. what is the ratio of white male- asian female couple to asian male- white female or really any female couples? I am, however curious to see how the data will look if you extend age range upto say.. 50- because by that age, the rates of incel-dom in white men will almost certainly increase to fairly significant percentages.

FYI, I will post the next text-heavy post in this series sometime in the next couple of days.

What do you think? Comments?