NSFW Links: Feb 9, 2019

February 9, 2019 2 comments

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

Side Selfies: Jan 24, 2019 – Amateur cuties taking side selfies.

Curvy Belfies: Feb 7, 2019 – Amateurs taking selfies of their perky behinds.

Color Drawings of Spanked Cuties: Feb 8, 2019 – Cuties during, and after, spanking.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Intersection of Narcissism, Attention Whoring and Extra Woke SJW-ism

February 7, 2019 4 comments

A few years ago, I wrote a short post about my thoughts on why female “celebrities” appear to have high rates of self-reported sexual abuse. The brief version of that article is as follows: show business attracts people with certain personality types- which is a nice way of saying that people who stay and succeed (even modestly) in that sector are pretty narcissistic and crave constant public attention or fame of any sort. Combine that with “gatekeeping” by rich and connected but largely talentless assholes (Harvey Weinstein etc), and it is a pretty ugly place to work. Also, let us stop pretending that women are “innocent” victims. They know exactly what is expected of them. There is a reason we have terms such as ‘casting couch’ and ‘stage mothers’.

Now let us extend this observation to its next logical outcome. Ever wonder why so many actors, actresses, musicians etc are into personality-based cults, alternative religious beliefs or various social causes? While some might want to believe that this has to do with them being nice human beings- the reality is far more sad and banal. To make a long story short, the type of outwardly pro-social behavior you see in showbiz has much more to do with the intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and increasingly pathetic trying to remain relevant. There is a reason why the “celebrities” who support allegedly pro-social causes are either way past their prime (Alyssa Milano, Chelsea Handler, Debra Messing etc), not attractive (Amy Schumer, almost all female comedians, Lena Dunham etc) or trying to get back in public eye (almost any female celebrity).

So how bizarre can this sad intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and extra woke SJW-ism get? Well, let me illustrate with a story. But before we go there, here is the standard boilerplate disclaimer. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Any why did I put this disclaimer before telling you the story. You will see..

The story starts with an attractive busty girl in her late teens who was pushed into modeling by her mother whose ambitions to become a famous model never came to fruition. So she gets into print catalog modeling, is reasonably successful and moves into TV ads. So far so good. She ends up having a very brief marriage in her very early 20s which ends in a quick divorce. Again.. that, by itself, is unremarkable. Then by a stroke of luck, a respectable adult magazine recognizes her physical attributes and pays her a low six-figure sum to pose nude. This exposure results in her getting some acting roles and more modelling contracts. At the top of her acting career, she is a C or D list celebrity. So far, her career path is neither unusual or remarkable.

But biology, you see, can be a bitch. The same genes which gave her a busty figure and mature look when she was in her late teens starts making her look a decade older. She tries networking in showbiz to get bigger roles, with some initial success. At around this time, she becomes one of the.. well.. regular non-exclusive sexual partners of a famous showbiz couple. However this gig does not translate into her getting the guy or bigger movie roles. After a few years, she decides to quit or (or is thrown out of that arrangement) and ends up dating and then marrying a C or D list actor- but one with a regular and decent paycheck. She immediately decides to have a child and within a year or so, gives birth to a male child. For the next 3-4 years, things appear normal.

And then the fun begins.. a few years into the marriage, she decides to start dating other women. Once again, this is not especially unusual by the standards of showbiz. However, for reasons that will be apparent later, she ends up with a lesbian showbiz type who goes out of her way to look masculine and has expressed interest in “transitioning”. Did I mention that this new person has apparently no talent and seems to have found success entirely due to her identity as a lesbian woman. Then again, many in showbiz have no talent.. so who cares. And this is where things start to get interesting. Within two weeks of starting this relationship, the once D-list actress abruptly declares that she has become a vegan and activist on all her social media profiles.

And then things take an even more interesting turn.. if you can call it that. She starts posting photos of her young male child in increasingly feminine hairstyle and clothing. In the beginning it is quite subtle, but then it starts becoming really obvious. Over next few months, she transforms her male child to the point where she starts referring to him as her daughter. The male child in question is less than 6 years old. What makes all of this a bit peculiar is the timing, specifically the fact that it started almost immediately after she dumped her husband and starting dating a lesbian woman who tries very hard (and in vain) to appear masculine. Also for some reason the publicly posted photos of her child start having lots of rainbow symbolism.

What makes this even more peculiar is that all publicly posted videos of child (by her) do not show any obvious feminine body language. Then ways things are going, there is a pretty good that this male child will end up getting puberty-blocking drugs and gender reassignment surgery or become totally estranged from his mother.. or maybe both. Who knows? The point I am trying to make is that this situation is almost entirely due to the desire of his mother to regain some popular relevance and attention, which feeds into her narcissism and compensates for the fact that she looks 10-15 years older than she should look- and will therefore never have the showbiz career she dreamed about in past. We also cannot forget the role of her partner- who has her own sordid past. But ya.. it is still mostly about the mother.

Readers might have noticed that I did not make any claims that the woman is abusing her child. Why not? Well.. because I don’t care about this sordid saga beyond its value as an interesting short story in the depths of human depravity. And make no mistake, what she is doing is no worse than female genital mutilation as practiced by people belonging to a certain religious faith who originate from some middle-eastern and north-African countries. Some mutilate their child to, ostensibly, satisfy a bronze-age deity.. others do it to express their enthusiastic embrace of a new secular religion. What is the difference? And one more thing.. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Kapish?

What do you think? Comments?

Contemporary Transgenderism is Based in Regressive CONservatism

February 4, 2019 8 comments

Readers of this blog will be aware of my rather dim view of certain social movements which claim to be liberal and progressive, but are the opposite of what they claim. I have written more than a few posts about how SJW-ism and how the causes it promotes are actually quite regressive (link 1, link 2 and link 3). I have also been a strong supporter of causes, such as freedom of speech, which are currently unpopular just because losers like Alex Jones are invoking it to defend their odious behavior (link 4 and link 5). Moreover, unlikely many self-anointed progressives, it is my opinion that giving your consent or more power to governments and corporations is a really bad idea (link 6 and link 7). My beliefs don’t fit within intellectually dishonest ‘left-right’ classification which dominate the mind of incestuous circle-jerkers aka “credentialed intellectuals”.

Some of you might be aware that I have written posts on this area such as- Contemporary Elite Support for Transgender Rights and Neoliberalism, On the Most Likely Mode of Discreditation for TransGenderism Ideology and Some Thoughts on How TransGenderism Will Likely Lose Public Support. In these, I covered issues such as the connection of this ideology with neoliberalism and late-capitalism and how institutional support for it is eerily reminiscent of past support for other bad ideas such as eugenics and residential schools. To put it another way, I am not a big fan of that ideology- especially the way in which its proponents are trying to force their worldviews on other people. Some might ask.. “how is that different from struggle for gay and lesbian rights”? Well.. glad you asked, because there is a big difference between them and transgenderism.

But before we go there, let us be clear about something- I have always believed that no person or institution has any right to tell or enforce how another person should live their life or who they should have sex with- as long as it does not involve animals or children. In other words, society should not discriminate between people irrespective of their sexual preferences and lifestyle. But isn’t this belief at odds with my strong support for gay and lesbian rights versus my expressed thoughts about the ideology of transgenderism? Well.. no, because gay and lesbian rights are not in the same category as transgenderism. Confused? Here is the long-form explanation which starts by looking at how the gay and lesbian rights movement came into being.

The modern movement for gay and lesbian rights in west started sometime during late-1960s. While there are many reasons for why it started at that time- it is best understood as being an extension of the sexual revolution and various civil rights movements. So.. ya, the movement for gay and lesbian rights started and grew as a movement for equal legal rights and legal protection from discrimination. And yes, there is a very good reason that I am emphasizing the part about legal equality. You might have noticed that this movement, over the next few decades, was primarily focused on achieving legal equality rather than social acceptance. But why? Why focus on the legal part and not the social part. The simple answer to that question is that legal equality is readily attainable while social acceptance cannot be forced.

A more complex answer requires us to understand its philosophical underpinnings. Specifically, the gay and lesbian rights movement was and is largely based in progressive principles. But isn’t the movement of transgender ideology based in progressive principles too? Well no, it is not and the way I described it provides a partial clue. See, the gay and lesbian rights movements are not independent and free-standing ideologies. Instead they are part of progressive humanism, which is why they were successful and are so uncontroversial today. They demanded equal legal rights because they were also human, rather than somehow special or different. Nor did they try to impose their belief system on other people or make constant demands from others to recognize and celebrate their “specialness”. They just wanted to treated like everyone else.

Now compare this to the ideology of contemporary transgenderism, more precisely how it works in real life. For starters, everyone else is supposed to just shut up and accept any new brainfart emanating from the vocal self-anointed leaders of that movement. Anybody who does not do so immediately is labelled as a denier or heretic. And don’t forget that they are all “extra-special” people with a unique connection to something that nobody else can understand. Accepting this ideology by mutilating your genitals and secondary sexual characteristics is supposed to provide you with a magic cure for all your mental issues and help you get into the inner circle. Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the reactionary bullshit you usually see in religions and cults?

But it gets worse. Have you noticed that those who change their gender (especially from male to female) go for conventionally hyper-feminine look, dress and behavior? But why is that so? Why do they crave socially sanctioned feminine and masculine looks, dress and mannerisms? Let me contrast that with gay men and lesbian women. Have you noticed that both come in a very wide range of looks, dress and mannerisms? While the media, sadly, often still portrays gay men as effeminate queens, most people who have interacted in real life know that they cover the full range of masculinity. In other words, most gay guys are like straight guys. The same is true for lesbian women. Most are not the ultra-masculine “dykes” still sadly portrayed in media. Most of them are like straight women and it is even harder to tell them apart than gay and straight men.

And this brings us to why I said that the ideology of transgenderism is based in a regressive form of CONservatism. One major difference between CONservatism and progressive humanism is that the former requires people to conform and fit into narrow definitions of what they are “meant” to be. That is why, for example, CONservatives were historically against women wearing pants or not dressing in allegedly “approved” ways. This is, also, why women who appear on CONservative news outlets dress and style themselves in a particular hyper-feminine manner. To make a long story short, any ideology which directly or indirectly pushes its followers to conform to narrow “traditional” choices in style, dress and behavior is by definition CONservative. Now combine this insight with the previously mentioned bit about its highly cultish nature and you will why it is fundamentally different from the movement for gay and lesbian rights.

What do you think? Comments?

On Establishment Democrat Hypocrisy and the Ralph Northam Scandal

February 2, 2019 10 comments

While I prefer to write on topics which are more intellectually satisfying than some stupid piece of current news, there are times when the later have some relevance to former. Most of you must have heard that the current governor (as of the time of writing), Ralph Northam, posed as either a blackface character or KKK klan member for some photo taken at some party in his mid-20s. It does not help that he selected that photo as one of four to appear on his personal page in 1984 yearbook of his class. And let us be clear about something.. wearing either blackface or KKK klan garb at any public occasion in USA was a bad idea, even in 1984. Having said that, let us look at this mini-scandal from a different angle- especially at establishment democrats feigning outrage.

But before we go there, let us quickly talk a bit about why wearing either of those two costumes is a bad idea. To make a very long story short, the history of reprehensible institutional racism in USA make any attempt to celebrate or glorify that period highly unpopular in the contemporary era. That is why, for example, we saw all those recent agitations against continued public display of confederate statues in certain southern states. That is also why people see the confederate flag and other symbols of the “old south” as racist. The confederacy and its symbols occupy the same space in post-1965 american history as Nazis and their symbols in post-ww2 Germany. Everyone knows what happened, but only idiots wish to glorify and celebrate the worst part of their history.

Which brings us to Ralph Northam and his lack of judgement in playing racist dress-up in 1984. The very recent leak of those photos appears to have been timed to hurt him because of his pro-choice stance, however the reaction of establishment democrats says a lot more about their own hypocrisy than this poor cosplay choice in 1984. Let me explain that point in some detail. A lot of establishment democrats from Bill Clinton and Joe Biden to Kamala Harris have done far more to perpetuate the inequities and suffering caused by racism than putting on a highly racist costume for drunken cosplay. Bill Clinton, as many of you know, was instrumental in passing laws which perpetuated structural racism such as Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act aka the 1994 crime bill and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act aka welfare “reform”.

Did I mention how he gave an important campaign speech in 1992 using the background of a few hundred incarcerated black men at Stone Mountain, Georgia? Or remember how he showboated the execution of a mentally retarded black man to increase his support among potential white voters in 1992 presidential election? Meanwhile the 1994 crime bill, which he strongly supported and signed, caused the largest sustained increase in number of jailed black men in american history. And yet somehow he was the first “black” president according to some cock-sucking loser in the mainstream media. Moving on.. did you know that Joe Biden was the leading proponent of the 1994 crime bill and he spent a lot of effort making it as punitive as possible for black people?

But we are supposed to believe than an idiot wearing a racist cosplay costume in 1984 is far more worthy of public damnation than two people who have screwed over the lives of millions of black people. What about Kamala Harris, who spent her whole career enthusiastically prosecuting tons of poor and usually nonwhite people for minor “crimes” and then laughing about it? Of course, her alleged zeal for fighting crime did not extend to rich white criminals especially those who donated to her political campaigns. And somehow, the democratic establishment sees her as a viable presidential candidate. My point is that establishment democrats have perpetuated structural inequities of racism almost as much their republican counterparts in post-1965 era.

But that idiot wearing blackface/ KKK outfit in 1984 is the source of all our problems *sarcasm*.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Difference in Outcomes for China and India in Post-1945 Era: 2

January 30, 2019 5 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote that India and China started from about the same level, and with a host of systemic problems, as nascent modern nation states in 1947 and 1949. While India might have initially seemed to be the more successful of the two, China slowly but surely outpaced it in almost every aspect from about the mid-1960s. The gap has now grown to such levels that the real difference between these two equipopulous Asian nations now appears unbridgeable. In the previous part, I also said that majority of difference in outcome between the two can be attributed to difference in quality of leadership and administration between them. For starters- Indian leaders, while superficially more erudite than their Chinese counterparts, came from families who had previously gotten rich by collaborating with British colonizers.

The majority of those who came to power in India had also never been tested under real life-and-death situations. In addition to displaying uncritical belief in whatever any white person wearing a suit told them, they had no real interest in improving the condition of their fellow country men and women. Indeed, most of them did not see themselves as part of India.. well at least not ‘that other’ India. They saw themselves as darker white sahibs carrying the “white mans burden” and ruling over a hopeless bunch of subhumans. Some of you might wonder as to how I reached this rather dim view about that allegedly “great” generation of leaders which India had in aftermath of gaining independence in 1947, from the now defunct British empire. Easy.. look at their behavior and actions, rather than their words- because the later is cheap unlike the former two.

1] Both India and China started life as modern nation states with very high levels (over 80-85%) of illiteracy. So how did Indian leaders go about trying to fix this problem? How about.. by doing almost nothing. That is right! While Chinese leaders put a lot of effort and force into projects such as simplifying the Chinese script, ordering translations of everything they could find into Chinese, improving primary school attendance and childhood literacy among its population by any means (including force)- their Indian counterparts gave speeches and raised slogans about removing illiteracy. While it is true that Indian leaders did fund a few elite universities and educational institutions (IITs, IIMs etc) earlier than China, they largely ignored the primary and secondary educational sector. But why? Well.. think about which educational institutions their progeny, and those of their flunkies, would attend. It is that easy.

So why didn’t the Chinese leadership behave in such an utterly selfish manner? The answer is.. because they were pragmatic. While creating elite educational institutions for your own children sounds like a good idea, doing so without creating an equally extensive non-elite educational system would almost certainly lead to them remaining a poor country. Chinese leaders were always interested in true global power and prestige. It is not possible to be powerful and feared (or respected) on the international level if your country is an un-industrialized and materially poor country full of illiterate people. Indian leaders, on the other hand, were incapable of visualizing themselves as anything other than second-rate ‘whites’ in charge of a country predestined to be poor because some white guy in an expensive suit told them so.

2] It is no secret that the administrative system and bureaucracy in India, along with its laws and regulations, had been designed to exploit and abuse Indians for the benefit of the now extinct British empire. Any person with half-a-brain who was genuinely interested in improving conditions in India after independence would have liquidated everyone in the administrative system, except its junior-most employees, and built a new one- if necessary by copying from countries where things worked. That is, however, not the path taken by Indians leaders after ‘independence’. Instead they retained almost every single part of the incredibly abusive and dysfunctional system including its pathetic white-worshiping personnel. And this is how India ended up with a shitty and incompetent bureaucracy which benefits nobody other than its employees.

Their Chinese counterparts, on the other hand, went on quite the cleaning spree after 1949. They started by getting rid of bureaucrats who were, should we say, not sympathetic to the new order or problematic collaborators to previous regimes. They reformed laws, rules and regulations to make them more useful and internally self-consistent. Moreover, they were willing to reform their system as the situation changed- for example after 1971 and 1979. Some people say that it was helpful that China has a long history of competent bureaucracy, unlike India. However, after the ‘century of humiliation’ they had to start from scratch to build a modern secular bureaucracy and so their history is not especially relevant to what happened after 1949. Let me reiterate that the Chinese leadership did not educate their people and build a good bureaucracy because they were altruistic. They did so because they wanted to be leaders of a powerful and respected nation.

In the next part of this series, I will write about how the lack of imagination and ability displayed by Indian leadership over every single decade since ‘independence’ contrasts with the willingness of their Chinese counterparts to take calculated risks, persevere along initially suboptimal routes, keep thinking big and have a viable plan (or two) to get there.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jan 29, 2019

January 29, 2019 Leave a comment

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

Cuties Wearing Only Necklaces: Jan 14, 2019 – Cuties wearing only necklaces.

Bottomless Belfies: Jan 16, 2019 – Amateurs taking selfies of their behinds.

Colored Sketches of Spanked Cuties: Jan 20, 2019 – What it says..

Side Selfies: Jan 24, 2019 – Amateur cuties taking side selfies.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Understanding the Real History Behind ‘Wolfenstein’ Video Game Series

January 28, 2019 5 comments

Almost anybody who has played video games, with some regularity, over the past two decades has gone through at least one release in the long-running ‘Wolfenstein‘ game series. My personal favorites in that series are Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolfenstein: The New Order. Perhaps some of you might be aware that the overall plot and environment of most games in that series is based in a somewhat fanciful extrapolation of reality. While nobody is claiming that reanimated mummies, the raised undead or fire zombies are real, a lot of what is found in the most popular releases of that series (specifically Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein: The New Order and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus) are based in real events, facts, persons and possibilities.

For example, one of the central elements of ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ involves the player trying to stop attempts by Nazis (especially Heinrich Himmler) from resurrecting ‘Heinrich the Fowler‘- who also happens to be final boss of that game. It just so happens that Himmler was deeply into a lot of mystical BS and had a peculiar obsession with that particular Saxon king from 10th century AD. Similarly one of the mini-bosses in that game, Marianna Blavatsky, is a sendup of Helena Blavatsky– a real life “psychic” medium from late 19th century whose teachings had a major (if unintentional) influence of development of the belief system behind certain parts of Nazi ideology. In fact, here is a post which talks about some of this from 2006.

Himmler, when he was not planning mass murder, was into a lot of mystical stuff. For example, he was a big supporter of pre-ww2 expeditions into Tibet and other “archaeological” projects to establish the veracity of his beliefs. He was also a big supporter of what is now called ‘Nazi archaeology‘. It is also true that many senior scientists and engineers in that regime found Himmler’s forays into mysticism amusing, to put if mildly, but never confronted him publicly because of his position. Did I mention that Castle Wolfenstein is based on Castle Wewelsburg, though its location is influenced by that of Kehlsteinhaus. Furthermore, many of the advanced weapon systems depicted in the 2001 game are based in reality.

Similarly, later releases of that game such as ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’ (2014) are based on pretty decent extrapolations of what might have happened if funny-mustache guy and his flunkies had been more competent. While we are unlikely to have seen giant robots driven by brains or super laser guns- the game does a pretty good job of capturing the type of society and world which would have resulted from Nazi Germany wining WW2 or achieving a stalemate that was equivalent to victory. In that respect they do a much better job at writing believable alternate history than ‘The Man in the High Castle‘ series by Amazon.

Now let me ask you a question.. Have you ever wondered about the convergence of personalities, zeitgeist and events which ultimately led to the Nazi Ideology? As it turns out the answer is not straightforward and it all starts about 50 years before they came to power. To make a very long story short, the original impetus for popularity of mystical beliefs which would one day become Nazism started out as a reaction to socio-economic displacement caused by Industrial revolution in Germany. The initial popularizers of those ideas, such as the Helena Blavatsky, were probably into it to become famous and make a few bucks. In fact, this moment should be seen as German equivalent of the spiritualism craze that swept Britain between the 1870s-1930s.

Racism and belief in Eugenics were also not unique to Germany, during that era. Some of you might know that Nazi Germany got a lot of its ideas about Race and Eugenics from USA. Social Darwinism, too, had its roots in Britain and USA. Which brings us to the next question- Why did Nazism develop in 1920-145 era Germany and not.. say.. in USA or Britain? The answer to that question requires us to understand something important and relevant, even today.The precursor to Nazi regime, aka the Wiemar republic, was fine with then contemporary levels of racism, anti-semitism, eugenics etc. But they slowly lost, over a period of over ten years, all of their credibility with most people in that country. Also the rich in Germany preferred fascists over socialists.

And that is how funny-mustache guy and his flunkies got in power. It certainly helped that were able to combine all those new-ish currents of belief and ideology into a somewhat coherent ideology. While a lot of videos on YT suffer from YouTube face, overenthusiastic presenters and poorly researched bits by idiots with a British accent, some are better. So here are two long clips (unfortunately containing poor quality footage) which do a very good and objective job of explaining how various streams of Nazi ideology combined into their final form. They are a bit on the longish side, but totally worth the time.

Clip 1 (about 51 minutes long)

Clip 2 (about 54 minutes long)

What do you think? Comments?