Archive for the ‘Ape Mind’ Category

Making Humans Disappear: 1

October 13, 2012 16 comments

As I have stated in numerous previous posts, such as this one, there is really no way to fix human problems because they are largely self-inflicted and based on modes of behaviors that are irrational. You cannot fix what does not want to be fixed, but that does not mean you should let it keep on existing. I would like to tell you that there is a magical way to separate otherwise OK people from sociopaths, drones and assholes. But there isn’t such a method or algorithm nor could you implement any such strategy on a scale large enough to reliably rid the world of such people, their kids, grand-kids etc. But there is another way to approach this problem..

Make all humans disappear… the keyword is ALL.

Now you might be skeptical about whether something like that is even possible and more importantly feasible. I mean how do you get rid of people who want to live. Would they not try to do anything to keep on living? Ironically, it is possible to use this very willingness to live at any cost to make humans extinct.

But first let us understand what methods of making human disappear won’t work. Methods based on natural disasters, energy starvation, nuclear wars, comet strikes, epidemics (natural or artificial) might destroy entire civilizations but they are unlikely to reliably cause human extinction. They are also complicated, involve too much work and have single points of failure. The other problem with such methods is that an external threat might make human beings temporarily come together and find a way around that problem.

The best way to cause human extinction is to use certain features of the human psyche, present day society and technology to make things fall apart at an ever-increasing rate.

I am certainly not the first person to wish for human extinction. However I and others who wish that today have some advantages over those who wished something similar even 30 years ago. We now have many of the enabling conditions and technology to complete the job.

Those enabling conditions and technologies are:

1. A globalized and connected world where news, ideas and events spread in ways that are beyond the control of anybody. In previous eras, even the utter collapse of one civilization would often not transmit to another on a different continent. Today we can daisy-chain the whole process and use one node to amplify the damage at another node (and so on) till the whole thing comes apart.

2. In previous eras people could not act on their worst impulses because they were part of some social structure or order around them. Today, we have a rapidly increasing number of people who have no real connection to the society around them nor any hope of benefiting from playing by the rules- and they know it.

3. Our societies, in-person behaviors, customs and expectations are still based in a world that used to exist. We still act as if the social changes and technological possibilities which have occurred over the last few decades had no real impact on who we are. While living in a previous era can work for some time, the shift underlying realities will ultimately interrupt the trip.

4. We have run out the spare human beings! In previous eras, it was possible to cover all sorts of horrible things and mistakes with a new crop of naive humans. Today, you can no longer do that and that affects the amount of bullshit a society can get away with before experiencing irreversible collapse.

5. Newer technological possibilities and older socio-economic mores have made it easier to put some space between us and the damage we cause. Today a billionaire, celebrity, CEO, manager, lawyer, bureaucrat or doctor can cause far more damage without a realistic threat of immediate retribution. Since human beings, especially the ‘clever’ ones, are the most short sighted- the lack of immediate retribution can make people cause far more damage than they had originally intended.

It is relatively easy to make people do something that can start a whole series of secondary and tertiary events whose eventual impact is far more than the primary event.

But how can one translate that into initiating a process which will eventually, but certainly, destroy all humans. Now I fully understand that almost nobody would willingly take part in something along those lines- if they saw it like that. But why advertise it as such? I am not suggesting that lying is the way forward, but what if you presented it in a way that appealed to the needs (rational/irrational) and ego of human beings.

Almost every human being desire to keep on living is linked to some combination of external validation, social acceptance, respect from others, power over others, ability to harm others, make others suffer etc.

Now all of these reasons are not truly rational- even at our current level of technology and knowledge. But then again, human beings are not rational. This is especially true for those who pretend to be “intelligent”, “rational” and “objective”. A truly rational human would spend all of their waking hours trying to get away from the slow-motion disaster also known as the rest of humanity. Therefore I do not expect the very few truly rational human beings will care about what I am talking about- one way or the other.

My idea relies on using the consequences of social atomization and mass personal communication mixed in with simple probability to create a set of circumstances that will elicit a disproportionate and increasingly counterproductive reaction from the rest of people. Fortunately developments within the last two centuries, and especially the last few decades, have made my task much easier than it would otherwise have been.

In the next part of this series, I shall discuss the single most important social phenomena that will allow my vision to prevail- the rise of the ‘free agent’.

What do you think? Comments?

Effects of Social Atomization on the So-Called “Elites”

October 11, 2012 15 comments

My previous posts on social atomization focus on its large-scale effects on society. But what about the so-called “elites”? Are they not adversely affected by social atomization? Or does it benefit them to the detriment of others?

I believe that the so-called “elites” do suffer the consequences of social atomization, in more ways than one. However their position in society allows them to temporarily insulate themselves from its worse effects- without changing the final outcome.

Let me start by pointing out two odd and interlinked features of present-day “elites” all around the world. Unlike their predecessors throughout recorded human history, they have very few kids and they work even when doing so is not essential and damaging to their ability to enjoy life. The kings, emperors, warlords, high priests, landowners and rich merchants of previous eras used their ill-gotten resources to eat, drink, fornicate and party till they dropped. Today their equivalents go to great lengths to keep on “working hard” and generally act and look like faceless rich drones. Most of the “elites” today are involved in shitty low-sex marriages and generally under the thumb of one or a series of aging miserable cunts who drain their money and sap their happiness. Few of them have more than a kid or two, who generally turns out to be mediocre at best.

So how do you explain people worth billions of dollars living such pathetic lives, when they have the resources to do have much better lives?

The sophists among you might claim that they choose this pathetic lifestyle because it is morally superior, indicative of ‘high IQ’ or long-term priorities. However “elites” throughout human history have always been opportunistic sociopaths who got lucky, and the same is true today. Nor is it due to the present being a “meritocracy” since merit plays a minor role in determining your “place” in society. Furthermore, humans beings don’t live forever so anything that occurs after your death is inconsequential. In my opinion, the progressively odd behavior of “elites” over the last 200 years cannot be explained by invoking conventional explanations such as the ones given above.

I believe that the direct and indirect effects of social atomization are behind the increasingly peculiar behavior and lifestyle choices of the so-called “elites”.

So how did I come up with this explanation? What drove me to associate social atomization with anhedonic behavior? The answer lies in first being honest about what motivates people as opposed to what makes them happy. While we like to believe that the same factors which motivate people also make them happy- that is often not the case. Fear of status loss, fear of material loss, desire to dominate and hurt others are often the strongest motivators. However going down that road takes you away from any chance at achieving any worthwhile degree of happiness or satisfaction with your life. Some morons might see happiness and satisfaction as the desires of an “inferior” and “unambitious” mind, yet they cannot explain the self-utility of a “hard workers” effort after his death.

Any conscious action which lacks self-utility is well.. stupid. If it does not make you happier, “better off” or keep you alive till the next realistic chance at escape- why are you doing it?

Which brings us the question of why “elites” live increasingly pleasure-less lives. To understand the reasons behind this change one has to first appreciate how “elites” become “elites”. In the past, people became “elites” because they were born to the right parents at the right time. They justified their position in society by claiming that they descended from gods or were chosen by gods- and used religion and greedy priests to support their claims. Those who challenged them were usually murdered- though sometimes the challengers murdered the previous “elites” and replaced them. To put it another way, their position in society could not survive even a marginally literate populace with a basic level of critical thinking. Which is why the enlightenment and the effects of the industrial revolution made it hard for the old “elites” to remain relevant, let alone command power or respect. They were ultimately replaced by the new “elites” who justified their position in society by claiming “merit”. While there was some truth to that claim, it did not justify the level of social inequality that exists and used to exist. However there was another little noticed side effect of this shift- loss of social cohesion among the “elite”.

Throughout history “elites” have defended their power through collusion with people related to them. Doing so was very easy in previous eras when you could fill all the important posts in your fiefdom with your progeny and relatives. But it is much harder to pull that off today because intense competition and the lack of good extended family protection means that conventional nepotism will almost certainly cause loss of status, money and dimunition of the ability to dominate/hurt others.

Today people have to work hard or put up a convincing appearance of hard work to justify their “elite” status- even if doing so is a losing proposition at multiple levels.

Therefore they cannot do stuff that would actually make them happy. Nor can they allow other “elites”, with whom they don’t share any deep personal bond, to do something that would make them happy. The “elites” now have more in common with a bunch of brain-damaged dogs who hate each other and are constantly fighting each other in a conflict that no one can win. Yet, they would rather prefer to keep on fighting over who is top dog than come to some form of agreement and live in relative peace and enjoy life- because nobody can trust nobody else. Even the “elites” are too atomized to act as a coherent entity.

Consequently they spend all their waking hours on posturing and fighting an unending war, rather than enjoying a relaxing and luxurious life. It does not take a genius to figure out why such people also have few, or often no, kids. On the bright side, social atomization has finally made the lives of the “elites” almost as miserable as the people they dominate and abuse every single day.

What do you think? Comments?

The Increasing Cost of Car Ownership is Capitalism in Action

September 25, 2012 27 comments

The last two years have seen a flurry of posts about why ‘Gen Y’ is not that interested in cars. In a previous post, I had summarized my views on that topic as-

The lack of interest in cars (and automobiles in general) by Gen-Yers is the rational result of a combination of long-term trends and the profit hungry short-sighted mindset which characterizes the later stages of capitalism.

While that post listed and briefly explained the main long-term trends that make autos less desirable, it did not really go into the other part of the problem (short-sighted capitalism) in any worthwhile detail. So let us fix that..

Evangelists of capitalism and its numerous minor flavors such as free-market capitalism, libertarianism, fascism, corporatism etc keep on telling us that capitalism is self-correcting. But what does such “self-correction” lead to? Do social or economic systems really have a stable equilibrium? While we can certainly engage in sophistic arguments about what capitalism is or isn’t; such talk is no different from trying to say that soviet- and mao-style communism wasn’t “real” communism.

I am going to use the response of contemporary society and its institutions to the “new car owner crisis” to demonstrate that capitalism-based systems are not self-correcting. Indeed, they have a very strong tendency to destroy themselves and damage the underlying social fabric.

The responses of car companies to this emerging crisis comes in two forms-

a1. Trying to find new car owners in emerging markets such as China, Brazil, Russia and India. They hope that they can get enough new customers to make up for the stagnation and decline in western countries. While the idea is not without merit, it assumes that whatever is causing the crisis in developed countries won’t occur in these emerging markets. While that assumption might have had some merit a few decades ago, that is no longer the case and trends from female fertility, rates of marital discord and other socio-economic trends spread much faster today than they used to. But let us ignore that for a moment and move on to the next response.

a2. They are hiring “trend consultants” and “designers” to create “hip” and “quirky” cars that will hopefully appeal to ‘Gen Y’. While doing so will make a few consultants wealthy, it does not address why things have gone downhill. Designing “hip” cars is about giving the appearance of action. It is similar to putting a colorful band-aid on a cut artery or giving aspirin to a person suffering from a serious infection. In both cases, it allows people to shield themselves from accusations of inaction.

The auto-makers response seems to be a combination of abandoning ship and casting spells to entice new car buyers. What about the government? Are they any better?

Now you might think that people in the government would be interested in keeping the status quo, if only to ensure the continuity of their scams. While they are aware of the potentially disastrous effects of declining rates of car ownership and use on their bottom line, it is apparent that they cannot get their shit together and act rationally. But why not?

b1. A government is a ever-morphing collection of scamsters and vested interests- just like any corporation. While the older version of this institution (from 1935 to say 1985) had some interest in ensuring their future through keeping the underlying society healthy, the newer version is full of rent-seekers. The governments of developed countries are now largely made up of factions and groups that have absolutely no interest in solving problems or building a better future. Indeed, they try hard to create more problems and opportunities to use legal coercion to collect rent. Consequently they spend most of their time trying to collect more and ever larger traffic tickets, build toll roads in preference to public access roads, and write rules and regulations to makes car ownership more expensive and onerous.

b2. Another factor that affects the government’s ability to respond meaningfully is that they employ an ever-increasing number of people to regulate and micromanage rather than do something useful. While this trend was a response to decreasing opportunities for employment in the private sector due to capitalism, it has created lobbies and cliques that want to justify their jobs, expand their domains and abuse others. While doing that is equivalent to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, most people are too short-sighted to think (let alone act) otherwise.

OK, so the government is solidly into rent-seeking and kicking the can down the road. But what about society in general? How are people trying to address the problem?

c1. The first and most predictable response is denial as most humans believe that reality requires their explicit consent to manifest itself. The strategies to deny this particular problem range from seeing it as good for the environment, a sign of the end of suburbia to seeing it as a reversion to the mean of ‘impoverished’ existence. While I have hate suburbs, I can see that they were about reestablishing racial and economic segregation. Cars just made the process a whole lot easier. The aggregate sum of the pollution caused by cars pales in comparison to that put out by coal powered electric generation in China. Furthermore, comparing our age with any previous one in human history is as meaningless as comparing a fish to a rat.

c2. Then there are those who hope and pray for a second coming of job based prosperity. But is that possible in a world where automation and machines increasingly do most important jobs? Face it, most jobs today are about scamming, bullshitting, zero-sum competition to do tasks that have a net negative utility to society. We can pretend that jobs in education, law, medicine, management, human resources, sales and other sectors are about creating a better world. But is it true? It is also important to understand that automation, technology and machines are increasingly replacing human labor in even these areas.

c3. We cannot also forget the CONservative, and often older, subhumans who try to convince everyone that they are lucky to alive as slaves. These are often the same asswipes who never try of telling others how they bought and worked on their first beater in the 1960s and 70s. They conveniently miss out the part about relatively stable jobs, low (or no) student debt and living under a less predatory version of capitalism. Some of you see such behavior and beliefs as an example of a simple misunderstanding, but I do not. Many of the morons who exposure such beliefs are just greedy cynics who believe that they are ageless and immortal.

Did you notice something common to every major point in this article? Institutions and people are letting boundless greed, delusional beliefs and absolute self-interest rule their very existence. Some many say that doing so is human nature, but is it just human nature? Isn’t that how capitalism really works?

What do you think? Comments?

A “Final Solution” for the Human Condition

September 18, 2012 12 comments

I had once written a post suggesting that the real reason behind the lack of communication with extra-terrestrial beings has a lot to do with the fact that humans are primitive and unstable scum who revel in zeros-sum contests of no particular significance. It is unlikely that any sane trans-human intelligence would reveal its presence to humans, let alone interact with them.

The sad reality is that humans, especially the “civilized” type, are too delusional and fucked up to transcend their pathetic existence.

Every large-scale attempt by human beings to transcend their sad existence is either based on outright delusions and lies (traditional religions) or clever rationalizations (capitalism, communism.. any -ism) of their zeros-sum mentalities. It seems that humans in large groups are incapable of being anything other than psychotic apes. There are those who believe that human beings can change for the better. My observations of human beings suggest otherwise. Furthermore, it is simply far easier to get rid of all human beings than try to reform them.

Achieving human extinction is easy since people throughout human history have spent most of their ingenuity at finding better ways to con, steal from, abuse and kill each other. However, for most of that history people also lacked the means and opportunity to do so. Today we have much better technology to kill each other and a far more fragile socio-economic system. Of course, I am not suggesting that one could openly recruit people to kill each other till the last human is dead. Most people would not participate in something so upfront.

The trick is to give humans very useful tools and technologies that will cause their downfall.

You have to understand that most human beings are driven by ego, greed, status seeking and sadism. They have no interest in uplifting themselves in a manner that does not involve screwing over someone else. You just have to give people the means to engage in intractable and continuously evolving conflict.

Give people the means to destabilize the lives of others in a milieu of social atomization, and make sure that every group and individual can screw over every other group individual.

Such enabling technologies and behaviors can be disguised with appeals to ego, “profit” and vanity. While a minority of non-delusional people will see through such traps, human history suggest that most will not. Indeed, the majority will create new ideologies, belief systems and hierarchies that celebrate their own downfall. Even serious setbacks and damage will not stop them for destroying themselves as each shrinking group of survivors will think they are that much closer to claiming the “grand prize”.

Some of you might wonder if the not-totally nuts minority might spoil such a scheme. However human history suggests that human ego, greed, status seeking and sadism will always win over rationality. The dominance crazed majority will most likely persecute and kill those who points out the flaws in their designs, because most people have fragile egos and tons of insecurities.

What do you think? Comments?

The Fundamental Assumption Underlying All Usable Predictions

August 29, 2012 2 comments

In my previous post about the negative effects of ideological and other mental filters on the accuracy of predictions, I said the following-

Of course, all predictions are also based on the continued existence of human beings in a familiar biological and social form.

Almost every single person who makes a prediction or hears about one makes the implicit and largely subconscious assumption that human beings and civilization will continue to exist in a form not too different from the one around us right now. I call this assumption the ‘hidden precondition of continuity’.

It might seem rational to assume that people similar to us will exist in the near, if not the distant, future. However this belief is based on what occurred in the past. If we go back even further in the past, it is apparent that many now extinct creatures were around for far longer than us. Even Neanderthals were around for atleast half a million years, before they became extinct or were assimilated by anatomically modern humans. Trilobites thrived and diversified for around 300 million years before disappearing within a very short time, right down to the last sub-species. Megalodon, a very successful species of shark big enough to make the one depicted in ‘Jaws’ look puny in comparison survived for almost 28 million years. Then there is the case of theropod dinosaurs which dominated the terrestrial world for over 200 million years, constantly adapting to changing conditions and filling new ecological niches until something happened and caused their extinction.

A history of success and positive trends is no guarantee to continued existence in the future, let alone success.

While extraneous forces and events could always human extinction, either directly or indirectly, there is another class of scenarios. Humans might willingly or unwittingly evolve into something else, even something that is not quite biological in nature. Would a human derived entity or “species” that could exist in a multitude of forms, biological, augmented or otherwise, be anything like us? Would they care about jobs, work ethic, a suburban house, an ivy league education or even sex in the manner we do? Would a society of such entities be driven by anything even close to the social dynamics that drives contemporary human societies? Would they even have a society as we understand it?

But why go that far.. how many of the 20-30 something guys today are similar to their contemporaries a generation ago? Can you really say that exposure to a diversity of views on the internet, very negative experience with corporatism and feminism, the availability of ubiquitous HQ porn and social atomization has not changed them?

Once we agree that they are different, the next question is- how much? While I am not suggesting that Gen-Y men are a new species, it is quite clear that a significant and growing minority of them cannot be modeled by extrapolating existing assumptions about human behavior and society. While we could wish away the impact of such a change if the population was growing at a faster rate or the world was still a happy and optimistic place, that is not the case.

However all social systems depend on the type of human beings they are optimized for being and remaining the absolute majority.

While societies go to great lengths to maintain the status quo and create or bully people into becoming the type of human being that system is optimized for, they are powerless against large-scale changes. Nor are they willing to accept those changes and adapt to them. Indeed, a retreat into orthodoxy and tradition is the most common and consistent reaction to systemic changes which threaten the status quo.

What do you think? Comments?

Non-Gun Mass Killings Will Become the Next New Trend

August 25, 2012 14 comments

It seems that we can hardly go a week without some quiet, lonely and otherwise law-abiding guy shooting up a few people. Such mass shootings have created an outcry among morons who think that guns kill people. There is however considerable evidence that killing lots of people without guns is actually quite easy, if the persons doing it is so determined. Moreover there are excellent contemporary examples, such as the ongoing drug wars in Mexico, that show the inefficacy of legal gun control in preventing people from acquiring guns.

Now I don’t know whether these weekly mass-shootings will become more frequent (likely) or deadlier (somewhat less likely), but that discussion is best saved for another post. But there is another and far more interesting trend that I predict will emerge regardless of whether lawmakers try to pass more restrictive laws about gun ownership. I have partially tackled this issue in a previous post.

People who are unhappy with the system, and see no viable future, will increasingly kill others through means that are not gun or explosive linked.

If you think about it, guns are actually a pretty inefficient means for killing lots of people. There is a whole series of logistic issues starting with how many people you can reliably kill until your guns jam or other armed people intervene. The medical treatment of gunshot wounds has improved considerably and almost all those who don’t die until they receive medical care will survive. Under most conditions you can expect anywhere from 5-40 deaths per incident and maybe double the number of wounded people. In my opinion, it is not too efficient and lacks plausible deniability.

Many other methods are far more efficient and have the advantage of plausible deniability. For example: it is hard to ascertain whether a low level health-care worker who administered the wrong drug, forgot to prevent cross-contamination or acted in any other manner which results in the death of many patients is malicious or just incompetent. Similarly a worker in a meat processing plant whose actions allows millions of tons of highly contaminated meat from entering the food supply killing dozens of kids in a horribly painful way can always plead incompetence or poor training. A low-level guy in a company that makes or packages medicines whose actions cause entire batches of medicines to be contaminated or poisonous can always plead incompetence and bad direction from superiors. The same goes for underpaid and unhappy people running machines and systems whose malfunction can directly and indirectly kill scores of people and cause billions, if not trillions, in secondary and tertiary damage.

Ultimately all complex human systems depend on the non-human components to be well maintained and run by people who do a good job and are proactive. But you cannot motivate people to do that (beyond a few years) by putting a gun to their head or otherwise constantly threatening them with poverty and hunger. This is especially true in an age when even poor people do not have enough extra kids to play against each other or use as fuel or disposable for capitalism. Furthermore the complexity and inter-connectedness of our systems is so great, and redundancy so low, that seemingly small incidents of bad faith could easily amplify and destabilize the whole system.

It is far easier to stop a guy with a gun, than one who is using his trusted position and knowledge of a system to destabilize it in a lethal way.

The current levels of unemployment and underemployment in youth combined with social atomization and the general loss of faith in the ability of society to fulfill its end of the deal make the widespread emergence of such behavior a matter of when, not if.

What do you think? Comments?

Does the Long-Term Survival of “Civilization” Matter?

August 2, 2012 18 comments

I will begin by asking a simple, yet often ignored, question which has an odd connection with the title of this post.

What are we referring to when we use the word “I”?

As many of you already know, I have no inclination or desire to engage in sophistic arguments about what different religions, philosophies or ideologies have to say about the nature of the self. A mode or regime of thought which cannot achieve anything worthwhile beyond empty debate is utterly worthless and delusional- whether it is Buddhism or Christianity. Moreover you do not have to believe in any particular school of thought to use and understand the concept of self.

So, is “I” a property of the body or the mind?

A person who has lost multiple limbs or received organ transplantation is still the same person and retains the previous self-identity. Since the mind and hence all mental processes such as self-identity are resident in the brain, you could say that “I” is partially a property of the brain. However, a brain under deep anesthesia while alive and functional does not posses self-identity.

Self-identity is an emergent property of one or more states of brain function.

Therefore pretty much everything and anything you do to remain alive is linked to the continued survival of those states of brain activity. Even the so-called higher functions of consciousness such as desire, ambitions and aspirations exist to serve a few states of brain activity. But there is an odd facet to being aware of your own self.

Humans are also aware that they are mortal.

So how do humans reconcile awareness of their own inevitable death and the conflicting need for their ‘self’ to keep on surviving? A few just ignore it and go on, but most try to compensate for the inevitable demise with their physical form by creating something that will outlast them. This takes many forms- from having children, organized religion, art and architecture, wars and nation building, exploring the world , creating new knowledge etc. But doing all of these things requires a seldom discussed but crucial precondition.

People must believe that their actions have a reasonably good chance of success.

Since it is hard to measure success after death, people have to rely on proxy indicators that their actions are in the right direction and not in vain. The lives of those who have lived before you are the commonly used and important proxy indicators for the success of your own actions. Therefore people who have seen their parents become more affluent through hard work are far more likely to follow a similar path and approach to life than those whose parents have become poorer over the years inspite of hard work. Similarly, people who have been part of functional families where grandparents are cared for by their own kids (parents) are far more likely to keep that tradition going when their own parents reach that stage of life. Most people will therefore keep the system running as long as it delivers a reasonable chance at non-corporal immortality and sense of purpose to life.

Our concern for the long survival of humanity is therefore dependent upon the belief that doing so helps us achieve non-corporal immortality.

For thousands of years, the majority bought into the whole premise of non-corporal immortality for a number of reasons. Firstly, it offered a sense of purpose and reason for living under conditions that were frankly pretty shitty. Then there was the lack of rational schools of thoughts or open debate and doing something because everybody else was doing it seemed like the easiest course of action. However the most important reason for maintaining the status quo was that it often worked and provided enough of the basic needs and incentives for people to keep on going.

So what happens when the system fails to deliver enough of the basic needs and incentives? What happens when it is seen as the obstacle to doing so?

Now, you might think that the system is delivering because ‘average’ people can check Facebook updates on iPhones, get fresh looking vegetables at the supermarket or buy a 3 dollar chicken sandwich from some fast food restaurant. But is that really the case? Are we not confusing shitty simulacra to satisfy urgent necessities with real needs and incentives? If these simulacra were sufficient, why are so many people dissatisfied with their lives? Why are so many people living by themselves? why are husband-wife and parent-child bonds so weak? Why do we prefer to check twitter updates and Reddit posts over talking a bit more to people we have sex with? Some of you might see such behaviors as “inevitable” consequence of people getting more affluent or something along those lines. I see them as strong evidence that people are actively disengaging from “civilization” because it is not satisfying the needs of the “I” within them.

Throughout human history “civilization” always tried to satisfy the needs and desires of “I” to remain viable. However a series of technological and social changes has resulted in a rapidly increasing divergence between the two to the extent that the “I” within each of us perceives “civilization” as the problem and not the solution. While “civilization” has the power of apparent numbers and inertia, it cannot win a conflict in which its supporters simply choose to gradually disengage and stay away. You cannot have a party if nobody shows up or barely talks with each other.

We now have a society full of people who are very aware that they is no real purpose or meaning in their existence, nor any reason to contribute to it in any meaningful manner.

What do you think? Comments?

Why ‘Older’ Cultures Are More Dishonest

July 16, 2012 16 comments

Have you ever wondered why Chinese, Indians and Italians are generally less honest than Germans, Swedes or even Russians? Some of you might think that this difference is somehow linked to latitude, amount of sunlight in winter or genes. I have a different theory based on an old observation-

The general level of honesty prevalent in any group of people is inversely proportional to the time their ancestors lived under a large, centralized and highly hierarchical state based on violent coercion.

The first “civilizations” (aka ponzi schemes) started in the lower (and warmer) latitudes. Therefore parts of the world such as the Middle-East, Mediterranean Coast, Mesoamerica, India, Egypt, China had towns, cities and large kingdoms a few thousand years before anything comparable arose in Northern and Western Europe. It is my belief that the development of “civilizations” based on intensive and static agriculture based under a centralized and hierarchical regime is the single biggest reason behind the widely varying level of dishonesty across different cultures.

Here is why-

Humans beings have lived as hunter-gatherers for most of their history as a species. For all its supposed faults, this particular life-style had some major advantages over those of people in ALL pre-industrial agricultural societies. Apart from a low incidence of malnutrition and endemic infectious diseases, these societies had a very shallow hierarchy and those at the top of that hierarchy were in the same boat as their followers. Coupled with the inability to accumulate and transmit wealth over generations, these groups were remarkably free of people who were dishonest to their followers. Even the introduction of transient and semi-permanent agriculture did not change this situation to a significant extent.

Then large-scale static agriculture happened.

While this mode of food production and social organization had many differences from its predecessors; I am going to concentrate on one of those differences- effect on settlement size. While previous groups of humans rarely exceeded a few thousands, static and intensive agriculture allowed that number to routinely reach into the tens or hundreds of thousands. The leaders of such large groups (first kingdoms) were increasingly able to isolate themselves from their followers and potentially exploit them in ways that were hitherto not possible. The need to administer and efficiently exploit such groups also necessitated the development of needlessly complex and ‘tall’ hierarchies with all sorts of sociopath-friendly laws and regulations.

So here is my question- What type of personality would gain power in a very hierarchical society with many laws and regulations?

The answer is obvious, but seldom discussed in “polite” society. Such socio-economic systems would select, concentrate and reward people with significant sociopathic tendencies. This unnatural concentration of sociopaths near the lever of power has two knock on effects.

1. To survive under such a regime people would adopt the behavior and attitudes of their “elites”. Therefore such societies would quickly become cesspits of backstabbing, treachery and generalized dishonesty.

2. If sociopaths are successful and sociopathy is partly inherited- it is possible that older civilizations might have a higher percentage of sociopaths just because more offspring of sociopaths survive and attain power.

Now you might wonder- Is it possible to reverse dishonesty in cultures? The answer is.. Yes with one caveat. The process of doing that is kinda messy and involves destroying all major institutions (and their members) in a given society which translates into about 10-20% of the population. Only a fairly deep social reset, be it through natural disasters, war, or internal collapse can reliably make a society less sociopathic.

What do you think? Comments?

The Two Basic Types of Dishonesty

July 14, 2012 14 comments

Honesty, or the lack thereof, have historically been linked to everything from culture, religion, race, class, intelligence to morality. I have always interpreted such purported relationships as the products of biased minds steeped in sophistry and other assorted forms of bullshit. In any case, most people ignore a far more important and relevant question.

Is dishonesty always wrong?

I believe that dishonesty is best understood as a strategy. But towards what end? and under which conditions? In my opinion, dishonest behavior can be categorized into two types- based on the motivations driving the deceiver.

Retaliatory Dishonesty: This type of dishonesty is by far the most common type of dishonesty. The dishonest person is merely retaliating against a person, group or institution that has previously abused his trust. Whether it is the friend who betrayed you, the lover who cheated on you, the boss who screwed you, the company, bank or university that abused you or the country that lied to the person- the dishonest person id not throw the first stone. Therefore retaliatory dishonesty is about loss mitigation and payback, as there is no point in continuing to honor an agreement which the other party has willingly defaulted on. Indeed, not retaliating in the face of continued lying, fraud and abuse would be irrational.

But there is another type of dishonesty.

Preemptive Dishonesty: As it name suggests, preemptive dishonesty is a type of strategy where you start out with the intention of screwing over your counter-party regardless of their behavior towards you. Those who indulge in such behavior try to justify it based on prevailing social mores, attitudes, economic conditions, libertarianism, capitalism, communism or any other ideology. However an objective look at the circumstances surrounding such acts of dishonesty always reveal that the main motivators for such behavior are infact greed, sociopathy, narcissism and a focus on money that approach autistic obsession. As I will show in the rest of this post, preemptive dishonesty is far more disruptive to societies than simple retaliatory dishonesty.

My classification of dishonesty into the above mentioned two types came from an interesting observation I made in my childhood. Some people are enthusiastically and consistently dishonest even if not doing so would be far more profitable. Example- Many Indian businessmen insist on selling substandard products and services even if the providing high quality versions of them would increase their total and per-customer profits, in addition to increasing their share of the market. I should note that Chinese businessmen behavior towards their customers is an almost identical.

But why would they consistently act in this manner? are they arithmetically challenged? why would they not want more profit, a larger market share and more loyal customers? why go for a short-term pump and dump operation when the alternative is far superior? I believe that understanding preemptive dishonesty as a strategy is possible if you are willing to accept an unpleasant aspect of human behavior.

Most businessmen are driven by the need to steal from and hurt other people. It is about scamming, impoverishing and fucking over other people. Profit is the icing on the metaphorical cake.

Accepting the possibility that most businessmen are driven by motivations other than profit allows us to then explain a whole range of seemingly irrational behaviors of the ‘rich’- from hoarding money beyond the point of utility, socializing losses and privatizing profits, fostering inequality to the point where it threatens their own existence, running perfectly good businesses into the ground to extract more money. It also allows the rest of us to create behavioral lists to identify such individuals and take appropriate action against them and their offspring.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Do We Require “Inspirational” Speakers?

July 2, 2012 11 comments

I am sure that almost every one of you had to either sit through, or hear about, some inane talk given by an “inspirational” speaker. The topics of such talks vary from specific ones such as how they “conquered adversity”, survived some disease to more generic ones like how they rose up through the ranks and became a “successful” politician, businessman or writer. But have you ever wondered..

Why do we require speakers to inspire us to do anything?

We certainly do not require inspirational talks to motivate us to drink something we want, eat something we like or have sex with an attractive person. Nor do we require inspirational talks to do something we like or enjoy doing.

Therefore, at first glance, the whole idea of “inspirational” speaking might sound like an attempt to con people into doing something that is against their best interests. But does it actually work that way? If you have attended more than a couple of these events- you are probably well aware that most of the audience does much pay much attention to what the speaker is talking about. So why do we keep on having more and more of such “inspirational” talks?

I believe that the answer lies in the nature of corporate-minded fraud and scams.

As many of you know only too well, most corporations survive through legislative capture, social inertia, even stupider competitors and the competence of a small number of dedicated employees. However the pay of people in corporations is proportional to a multiple of how well they can feign being busy and how visible they are. Therefore organizing or chairing meetings and committees, rather than working, is the easiest way to rise up through the hierarchy of a corporation.

But even that can be hard work, and human beings like shortcuts. Many have found that organizing meetings and committees that are extremely non-specific and generic can get them the same mileage as doing something that is even marginally useful. Furthermore, many corporations have to bribe people or make a show of good corporate citizenship.

Inviting “inspirational” speakers to talk to large groups simultaneously fulfills the needs of many disparate groups- from brown nosing climbers who want to seen as busy organizational experts to corporations looking to legally bribe “important” people with massive egos and get some good PR or the appearance thereof. The best part of this scam is that even the victims of these atrocities, the hapless listeners, only lose an hour or so of their lives listening to some self-important prick indulge in public masturbation.

and now you know why you have to sit through the inane “inspirational” ramblings of some moron in a suit or a fancy dress.

What do you think? Comments?

The Fatal Flaws of Plantation-type Economies

July 2, 2012 6 comments

I came across a post on which argues that the USA is headed towards a plantation-type economy based on “southern” aristocratic (read that as feudal) values. While that line of thinking does make some sense, even if the north-easterners were not much better human beings than southern slave owners, it misses an important and rather obvious point concerning the viability of feudal systems in the present and future.

Feudal systems require a large and external market for their labor-intensive products or services.

All feudal systems require a large pool of poor, low skilled and abundant laborers. However these slaves, serfs and indentured laborers are usually too poor to purchase what they produce. Hence plantation economies require a large, external and wealthy market for their products. The slave owners and plantation aristocrats of the 17th and 18th century (be they in the USA, Caribbean, South or Central America) had a ready-made market for their produce in the rapidly industrializing economies of Europe. Even the indentured labor economies prevalent in the post-civil war south had a market for their products in the rapidly growing and increasingly affluent Yankee north.

But is that still the case?

Where are the new costumers for low-cost products and services offered by plantation-type economies going to come from? Western societies are rapidly aging and the numerical strength of their younger generations is rapidly going down. It certainly does not help that the younger generation have low incomes and poor future prospects due to stupid economic policies. Furthermore, they themselves are either not having any kids or having even fewer kids. East-Asian countries are also following that same path of low and decreasing fertility and poor economic prospects for their next generation. Even countries such as Iran, India and Saudi Arabia now have fertility rates that are either less or close to replacement.

High-tech and skill based industries such as making specialized engineering, electronic products, chemicals etc are somewhat less susceptible to gross demand shrinkage by population aging and contraction, though they can still shed jobs due to automation and outsourcing. However relatively low-tech stuff such as product assembly or raw material extraction and processing are susceptible to gross demand shrinkage and job loss if the size of the overall market decreases.

Plantation-type economies throughout human history never had to face anything more than temporary dip in demand for their products. The loss of old customers through death in wars, epidemics and economic downturns was more than balanced out by even more younger customers. That “unchangeable” historical trend has now changed- throughout the world.

Which brings us to the second flaw of plantation-type economies which is far more relevant today than it was 100 or even 60 years ago. These socio-economic systems are characterized by low social cohesion, even lower trust and an inability to get large projects done or maintained.

But, once again, why?

Feudal societies have only one tool or method to motivate people to slave way- the threat of violence or death. Coercion is capable of forcing people to pick cotton, dig ditches, raise pigs and do other pre-industrial or early industrial era vocations. However you cannot coerce people to build and maintain usable electrical grids, civil engineering projects, high-intensity transportation systems, decent health care systems or even maintain good water supply and sewage disposal systems. A very significant factor behind the lubeless sodomy of the South by the Yankees in the civil-war was the former’s inability to run a functional industrial-age economy.

Today, even totalitarian countries such as China, whose economy is close to the slave-labor model dare not run their economies and societies as true feudal societies. Their feudal minded elite spend tons of money on power, infrastructure, education and betterment of their own population- if only to maintain their own power. They understand something which escapes many american CONservatives- a population which experiences an increase in their living standards under your rule is far more likely to stand behind and overlook your indiscretions. Investing in the betterment of your own country consolidates your power in a way that coercion never can.

Meanwhile american CONservatives are still mentally in the 1800s. They apparently believe that they can get way with much more of their bullshit, because the system has yet imploded. Then again, the stupid lumberjack who is hacking away at the very branch he is sitting on does not stop till the branch ‘unexpectedly’ snaps and kills him. I guess that is what the future really holds for American CONservatism. It is just too bad that they will have caused a lot of damage because they get exterminated in the collapse.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Societies Fool Themselves about their True Selves

June 22, 2012 12 comments

Have you ever wondered if there was a quick and easy way for identifying the weak points and deficits of any given society? Here is one..

A society usually lacks whatever quality, resource or attribute it portray itself to be  full of.

Maybe a few examples would help you understand my point.

Let us start with the USA as our first example. For some odd reasons, more than a few people from that country will never tire of telling you that it is full of happy, hardworking and honest individualists. However, as many of you also know, the reality is rather different. Even the casual visitor quickly notices that the USA is full of joyless, greedy and fat drones who will prefer to work in some ‘safe’ job selling their soul for a few bucks so that they can buy stuff to fit into a ‘cool’ crowd of people they barely know. Or take their much publicized “best healthcare system in the world” which is supposedly patronized by people from other countries. Oddly enough, it provides markedly inferior general outcomes when compared to less expensive systems in ‘socialistic’ countries. The American justice system, which is supposed to be fair and a system governed by ‘laws not me’, somehow manages to incarcerate more people than China or Russia- both in sheer numbers and percentage. Did I mention that most criminal cases in the USA never go to trial and are settled by onerous plea bargains and mandatory sentences.. kinda like they used to do in those ‘bad’ communist countries. Or what about the savage treatment of peaceful protesters during the recent OWS demonstrations?

However such cognitive dissonance is not uniquely American- by any stretch of imagination. Let us look at India as another example. Most people from that country claim that it is a functional democracy. While that country is certainly a democracy, it is well.. not quite functional. Or take the claims that Indians are vegetarians because they are compassionate and spiritual people. The reality is that vegetarianism in India is a stupid and self-destructive status symbol. As far as compassion and spirituality.. let’s just say that those qualities are rather uncommon in Indians. The average Indian is a greedy, dishonest, money and status obsessed shyster- just like your average American. Most Indians also claim to be keepers of a rich five thousand-year tradition. The only problem with that claim is that most people in India cannot read, or understand, the ancient languages in which those traditions were passed down- in written or oral form. Then there is the unique ability to make poor long-term decisions to pursue short-term profit, while proclaiming their ability to be good at long-term thinking. The progress of east-Asians in the last 100 years has been based on copying and selling products to the west. Sure.. east-Asians make good drones and indentured laborers, but much of their so -called superior culture and traditions are ways to cover their own inadequacies.

East-Asians are also full of shit. They talk a lot about their willingness to work hard, study boring crap, be financially frugal and progress in life based on their merit and competence. But they somehow avoid any discussions about the reasons behind their approximately 4,000 years of cultural, social and technological stagnation. Surely all of those wonderful and wise Confucius-based attributes should have resulted in continuous and relentless progress- but did it? Why not? They also talk about how their society places the group about the individual as an example of selflessness. Paradoxically that trait did not stop their social, cultural and technological stagnation nor did it result in any endogenous improvement in their level of prosperity until they found ways to copy and sell inexpensive stuff to western countries. The reality is that the average behavioral profile of east-Asians comes rather close to greedy, amoral sociopaths whose are unable to imagine a society not based on systemic theft, abuse and scams.

People from European countries are no less delusional. They keep on trying to live in a bygone era when they used to the center of the world. Reality, has however, moved on. Their self-image of themselves as civilized is at considerable odds with their history- especially the parts about numerous wars between themselves and looting of other countries. They pretend to be be more evolved when any objective reading of history will tell you that the lifestyle and mentality of the average European in the last century was not that different from a slum dweller in Nigeria today. They somehow like to brush over the fact that, even a century ago, their social institutions and customs were not that different from people they look down upon today. They try to portray the technological and industrial revolution of the last 200 years as an ode to their superior intelligence, when it was largely funded by stealing and enslaving people in other countries and abusing many in their own. I could go on, but let us get to the next point.

So, why do people and cultures try to cover their inadequacies by lying to others and themselves?

I believe that the answer lies in their efforts maintaining a positive ‘self-image’. Humans have an instinctive sense of right and wrong that is independent of religion, culture or other secondary belief systems. It is this instinctive sense that pushes people to make up lies, cover stories, rituals and propaganda to reconcile their instinctive sense of right and wrong with reality and their own actions.

Most propaganda, lies and misrepresentations are not meant for others. They are meant to convince yourself that you are basically a decent human being inspite of substantial evidence to the contrary.

What do you think? Comments?

The Super Computer Race is a Sad Scam

June 20, 2012 22 comments

Ever few weeks, or months, we hear about how some new super-computer has claimed the crown of the ‘fastest’ computer in the world. We are then bombarded with many numbers that document its impressive CPU count, RAM size, x gazillion operations per second, bus speed etc. But have you ever wondered-

What are these machines being used for anyway?

While running benchmarking programs to showcase the capabilities of your new toy is certainly satisfying, I cannot help but wonder what happens next. The conventional line fed to journalists who cover such events goes something like this-

“These new machines will help us model the universe/ weather systems/ climate change/ protein folding or any fashionable cause that attracts more funding.”

But haven’t we been doing those things since the beginning of the computer age? What have we achieved so far? How far has simulation of complex natural systems been helpful in understanding them? Can we make better predictions using faster computers or more refined algorithms? So far, computer simulations have not helped us understand or find dark matter- if something like that even exists. Our ability to predict the weather is still shit, and our climate models require “correction” factors to even approach observed values. Our ability to model protein folding and bio-molecular interactions is still pretty pathetic. This state of affairs has persisted in the face of colossal increases in available computational power. So what is going on? Why haven’t the computer gods delivered? Why would throwing more computational power at a problem solve it if previous attempts to do so have proved futile?

I believe that the problem lies elsewhere. Maybe our paradigms, assumptions, theories and algorithms are defective. While accepting this premise might be hard, it explains why the almost exponential increase in available computational power has failed to produce even a linear increase in our ability to accurately model complex systems.

Science today is closer to a mystery-based religion than an objective methodology for understanding the surrounding world. How many scientists and “experts” really understand what they are talking about in their jargon laden dialects? How much nonsense and bullshit is accepted and canonized because it sounds smart or knowledgeable. Aren’t their jargon-laden explanations rather similar to priests and witches communicating with deities, demons and spirits? How many scientists have even thought through the multitude of theories and paradigms they enthusiastically profess and promote?

Isn’t the search for dark matter a lot like the search for ‘celestial ether’ in the late 1800s, or the holy grail in a previous era? Aren’t most theories of the universe which can be proved only by self-referential mathematical manipulations a bit too much like religions beliefs based on misleadingly complex and sophistic arguments? Isn’t modeling climate with algorithms that require significant correction factors reminiscent of astrology, palm reading or reading animal entrails? While there are many reasons for this sad state of the so-called “cutting edge” of science- one factor stands out by its sheer obviousness and impact.

The need to show evidence for high metrics driven productivity in a system riddled with bureaucracy, bloated egos, stupidity and callousness.

Much of scientific research has long ceased to be an endeavor to expand the frontiers of human knowledge and benefit mankind- if that was ever the case. Today, it is mainly an exercise in hand-waving driven by the need to give the appearance of hard work to ensure continued funding. It is now a giant con game that preys on the hopes and fears of other people and repeatedly promises them things that they simply cannot deliver- kinda like religion promising salvation, heaven or an eternal afterlife.

I believe that using super-computers to create, store and distribute porn is a far better and more appropriate use of such machines.

What do you think? Comments?

The Elite are Not Good at Strategic and Long-Term Thinking: 1

June 17, 2012 23 comments

Many apparently non-retarded people seem to believe members of the so-called “elite class” are very good at strategic and long-term thinking. This particular belief is the basis for pretty much all conspiracy theories which you would have ever heard or read about. But is that belief true? or is it just a case of wish projection? Remember, I am not denying that people try to conspire or scheme. The real question is whether they can achieve anything beyond pissing in the rain.

In my opinion there are two types of reasons why the “elite” are far less competent than most people can imagine.

1. A ‘winner takes all’ system, like the one we live in, favors luck and chance over competence.

Let me clarify this point with a few examples. Would Microsoft be what it is today if it had not gotten a few important lucky breaks in the beginning or its now-extinct competitors made fewer mistakes? Think about it.. Was MS-DOS or Windows the best or even only Operating System for 1980-1990 era PCs? Was IBM the most popular PC manufacturer throughout the 1980s? Were all of its competitors such as Commodore, Apple and Amiga or even IBM staffed with incompetent engineers and programmers? So why did they not win the PC race? Could it be that it was luck and chance, not competence or ability, that made Microsoft the still undisputed leader in PC operating systems?

Let us take WalMart as another example. Beyond all the talk about their wonderful supply chains and logistics lies the real reason for their success- cheap manufacturing in developing countries. Ask yourself- How much of its success is dependent on the neo-liberal policies followed by the USA since the 1980s and concurrent mercantilism practiced by totalitarian low-wage countries such as China? The success of WalMart is largely due to being the right place at the perfect time with the right attitude. Changing any one of these pre-conditions would have changed the outcome of retail shopping in the USA.

2. Money and reputation from previous “wins” can be used cover current mistakes.

Ok, here are some rhetorical questions. Would any company other than Microsoft Have been able to survive the flops known as ‘Windows Me‘ and ‘Vista‘? In both cases, revenue from their previous successes such as Win98, Win NT and WinXp allowed them to weather failures that would have killed pretty much any other company. But what does repeatedly making such potentially lethal mistakes say about their intrinsic competence? Or take Apple, which also made many mistakes (Lisa, Newton) and took many mistakes (they initially resisted independent apps on the iPhone).

Another good set of examples concerns the recent failures of new drugs in Phase II and Phase III human clinical trials. Many of these new drugs were supposed to be blockbusters, and yet they failed miserably after each consuming billions of dollars and years of research by thousands of people. How could so many thousands of “super-smart” people fuck up so badly? In many cases, the fuck-ups were so basic and obvious that even a bunch of semi-retarded people would have figured them out.

Or look at the F-22.. they still cannot fix problems in the oxygen supply for pilots for an airplane that cost over 200 million dollars a piece. Even worse, the F-22 program has suffered from even more basic failures in the past– in many cases after induction of the aircraft in the USAF. How can people who are supposedly “smart and competent” make such big mistakes.. again and again? Or take Donald Trump.. How many times have businesses run by that guy defaulted on their creditors? and yet he seems to have little problem raising money for his next batch of hare-brained schemes. Or ask yourself- How many of Warren Buffet’s “wins” are due to legalized corruption, sweetheart deals and discrete influence peddling?

The reality is that the so-called “elite” are often less competent than your average village idiot. Only social inertia, slick image manipulation and the willingness of people to believe in a ‘fair’ world keep them relevant.

These people don’t have even the basics of what they claim to excel in. Take strategic thinking. People often forget that quality strategic thinking requires a high degree of objectivity which in turn requires a certain level of detachment from your immediate environment to see the bigger and less obvious picture. The “elite”, on the other hand, use their money and position in society to insulate themselves from the bigger picture. They tend to focus on the minutiae such as status jockeying (where they studied, traveled, ate, drank or what they read, saw, listened to etc). They spend their whole lives trying to think about as small a slice of reality as possible, while claiming to be good at seeing it all.

The “elite” also claim to be good at ‘long-term’ thinking- but the bulk of evidence suggests otherwise. Let us first consider the obvious problem with any ‘long-term’ planning aka our inability to predict the future. Given that many “super-smart” people have been repeatedly shown to be so wrong, should we even trust anybody who claims to predict the future? How can you predict any process which you neither understand nor control? Look at human history.. it is full of so many actions and decisions which in retrospective look like the handiwork of severely retarded persons. However all of these actions and decisions were conceived, executed and supported by the “best of the best” and the “brightest” minds of that era. How come these “most respectable” and “meritorious” people kept on fucking up so badly- century after century, millenia after millenia? Note that many of these fuckups hurt the “elite” in power as bad or even worse that the populations they were lording over.

I believe that the best way to model “elite” thought, behavior and actions in any human society is to ask yourself the simple question- What would a parasite do? aka WWPD?

What do you think? Comments?

The American Work Ethic is a Cancerous Ideology

May 24, 2012 13 comments

Americans in particular, and West-Europeans in general, pride themselves on their so-called ‘work ethic’. It is supposedly an important reason behind their prosperity. Now I could easily make the case that genocide, enslavement and looting of others were (and still are) the major factors behind western prosperity- but that is not the focus of this post. Instead I will show you how this supposedly superior ‘work ethic’ is a rather bizarre and pathological ideology. Let us begin by asking a simple question-

What do most people actually get out of diligent hard work?

Remember that I am not asking you what you are supposed to get out of it or what you should get out of it- theory and empty promises are not the same as real life outcomes. Religions are supposed to lead to enlightenment, peace and happiness. Eating more whole grains instead of fats is supposed to help people lose weight and become healthier.

So.. let me repeat my question- What do most people actually get out of diligent work? and is it really what they want? You can invoke the writings of any dead white man or talk yourself blue but the unpleasant fact is that diligent hard work by the dupe majority only serves to enrich a few. Did I mention that the dupe majority also assume all of the risks and take the bulk of losses.

Historically, hard work has seldom benefited those who actually did it- even indirectly. Only in the last 60 odd years has there been even a vague connection between diligent hard work and rewards.

Therefore we must conclude that all of those whites who slaved away from whenever till after WW2 were willing slaves. They were stupid enough to justify and celebrate their own exploitation slaving away at something that would not benefit them, their kids, grand-kids… well you get the picture. It is interesting to note that Blacks and Hispanics never had the same childish beliefs about the true nature of the society around them. Even events such as WW1 and WW2 show that most whites were stupid enough to enthusiastically fight and die for causes and institutions which treated them like so much cannon fodder.

But back to the main focus of this post- What does hard work achieve? Why do people work hard or at least pretend to do so? If you think about it, hard work is not (and never was) about doing something useful or beneficial. It is about dull people and willing slaves demonstrating their loyalty to his masters- for a few more scraps from the table. It is this particular disconnectedness of the willingness to work and its purpose that make it a cancerous ideology.

Here is a simple example that will help you understand my point. Let us say I decided to pay a majority of people in a group to torture and kill each others children. Would they do it? In most cultures and societies, they might take the money and maybe pretend to do it, or just forget to do it. Americans, and other assorted west-European morons, are “special” in that they will gladly torture and kill each others kids and then go on to use evidence of their deeds to claim competence and ask for some more money. Most americans, and west-Europeans, lack the ability to actually think through beyond the immediate consequences of their actions. They along with east-Asians are largely incapable to seeing the big picture. I believe that the majority of west-European and east-Asian people lack a theory of mind. Such an aspergy mind is helpful for short-term gains, kinda like cancerous cells demonstrate excellent growth and innovative work arounds the bodies defense mechanisms.

So-called “hard” work that lacks a socially useful component is rather like relentless cellular growth with consideration of its effect on the organism.They are very successful in the short-term, but at the cost of their chances for long-term survival. Social atomization only makes it worse and you end up with a society containing 300 million cancers- if you get my point.

What do you think? Comments?