Use of Adblock Blockers by Print Media is Speeding their Final Demise

October 11, 2018 3 comments

This is one of those posts that I started writing a couple of years ago, but didn’t get around to finishing till today. While it is almost certain that most of you know what I am talking about, let me write-up a quick introduction. It is common knowledge that print media, especially in USA, is on its last legs. Sure.. the election of Trump in 2016 has resulted in some improvement in profit margin for a few major quasi-national outlets such as the NYT and WP- for reasons that are all too obvious. Yet it is painfully obvious that most traditional outlets for print journalism are on the path of terminal decline. But why is that so, given their long history?

While there are many who blame technological “disruption” the real reasons are far more prosaic. To be clear, I am not saying that technological disruption had no role in ongoing demise of print media. It is, however, more like the 2nd or 3rd last nail in its coffin than what put it in there in the first place. Confused? Allow me to explain.. Print media has been on a downward slope since widespread introduction of Television in the 1950s. But why then, did it appear to be doing OK until the early 2000s, or at least the late 1990s? Two words.. Advertising Revenue. For many decades, the business model of print media has centered around advertising revenue.

Why then did TV or Radio not affect their revenue model as seriously as the Internet? Well.. both legacy media formats did hurt print advertising revenues but neither one could really replace it for certain classes of advertisements. You could not (for example) put personal advertisements, flyers, catalogs or advertise the detailed technical specifications of a product on TV or Radio. But the more important point is that most print media outlets stopped caring about real journalism a long time ago. If you don’t believe me, just Google/Bing/Duckduckgo a scanned newspaper from the 1990s. It is pretty easy to see that most “news” was wire service reprints, syndicated content from larger outlets and what is euphemistically described as paid journalism.

But how is any of this linked to the ongoing demise of print media? For starters, people are still interested in good journalism, opinion pieces, gossip and even activism. Have a look at Twitter (and its alternatives), YouTube channels devoted to opinionated commentary, Reddit (or any its alternatives) and you will see that people today are just as interested in what print journalism was supposed to be about. OK.. let’s cut to the chase- print journalism (especially in USA) lost its soul a long time because it embraced deference to elites, pretense of objectivity, tone policing and other advertiser and corporate friendly policies for decades.

Print media, you see, has been living for borrowed time for decades. The internet merely knocked away the crutches of guaranteed local advertising revenues which had allowed it to forestall its inevitable and terminal decline. This does not mean that it will disappear for ever, as some parts such as large quasi-national newspapers are likely to survive- at least in a recognizable form for the near future. But what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post? As it turns out, a lot more than you think. Regular readers might remember that more than a few of my previous posts say something to the effect of “large institutions in terminal decline often speed up that process by making increasingly disastrous decisions”. And this is not a new idea either.

We have all seen the USA make increasingly disastrous foreign and domestic decisions since the early 1990s. Whether it was extending NATO into Eastern Europe, de-industrialization of flyover country, involvement in disastrous (and highly expensive) wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, using the dollar payment system as a weapon of war, ignoring domestic problems such as increasingly decrepit infrastructure, rising costs of what passes for ‘healthcare’ and higher education etc. In a similar manner, print media has made a series of increasingly disastrous mistakes which have accelerated the speed of its demise rather than stabilizing the situation.

We have all seen those auto-playing videos, increasingly buggy and atrocious user interfaces, click-bait which masquerades as journalism and publishing barely concealed press releases as news items. I could go about their obsession with website views, metric of engagement and anything else that allows them to not fix their core problem, which is the lack of high quality, controversial and adversarial journalism. Now let us turn to their latest fuckup. As many of you might have noticed the proliferation of disruptive and malware ridden ads since 2012-2014 created a huge market for adblocking extensions for web browsers.

Long story short, the poor quality control of ads by Google and other ad-serving networks makes its mandatory for any non-retarded person to use adblocking software. But how has the print media responded to this apparent reduction in revenue from serving horrible auto-playing ads and malware? As it turns out, they decided to the most ‘logical’ thing and alienate their viewers even further. You must have seen popups on many print media that either try nagging you to turn your adblocker off, whitelist them or buy a subscription. But does it really work, especially in the medium to long-term? Of course not!

Only the old or naive are usually trusting enough to fall for such bullshit, and even they stop doing that after being burned out by one too many autoplaying ads and malware infestations. Most other people either apply counter-counter measures or simply stop visiting that site. There are many other places on the Internet where they can get news from Twitter and FakeBook feeds, certain YouTube channels, newsgroups and forums including Reddit, Podcasts etc. The use of measures to counter adblocking software ends up reducing the number of repeat viewers who will keep visiting their site. Sure.. it might appear to increase their profitability for a couple of quarters, but after that it is an even steeper fall.

But the most bizarre part of these corporate policies involves the remarkable lack of thought behind their implementation. Think about it.. would you keep going to restaurants or bars which served very mediocre food and drink but were constantly trying to upsell, even to the point of not letting you enjoy your stay there? Would you keep going to a restaurant where the furniture was full of bedbugs and fleas? Would you go to a restaurant which required an annual membership fee to even look at their menu? Would you go to a restaurant which sold your contact information to telemarketers? So why would you return to print media websites that served autoplaying ads, sold your contact information to spammers and infected your computer with malware- especially if there were other safer and better options to get news, opinions and adversarial journalism?

What do you think? Comments?

Request for Feedback from Readers on Topics for Two Upcoming Series

October 9, 2018 14 comments

While writing an upcoming installment for the series about how Varna and Jati aka ‘caste’ system was hugely damaging to Indians, it occurred to me that comparing how (and why) things turned out the way they did in India and China after 1945 would be an interesting idea. But why is that relevant? Well.. because most people who had acquaintance with the state of both countries in aftermath of WW2 would have put their money on India becoming the more prosperous and developed economy. However that has not been the case for last 40 years, and as things stand today- China had overtaken India on pretty much every single measure of human achievement (technological, military, geopolitical) by truly massive margins.

Sad white losers, like Steve Sailer, might want to believe that this has something do with ‘IQ’ or whatever bullshit he is into nowadays. I, however, see a very different cause for this massive divergence in destinies. In my opinion, it comes down to culture- specifically China being able to get rid of any part of its traditional culture and belief systems which hindered economic and social development. They learned all the right lessons from their ‘century of humiliation’. India, on the other hand, did not learn much (if anything) from being colonized by the British for almost 160 years. I don’t think they ever understood the concept of ‘humiliation’ given their continued eagerness to play the stupid sidekick for any western power who pretends to care.

Sadly, a large number of people in (and many from) India still live in almost total denial of this obvious fact. They keep telling themselves that all the technological and social progress they see in China is not real, or that it is somehow temporary or based on some fraud that will come crashing down any day. They have been repeating this bullshit to themselves and each other for over three decades now. Meanwhile in the real world, China has kept moving past India on almost every single front- even the ones they used to visibly lag as late as the early 1990s. And yet for some reason, most people in India still believe that prostrating them in front of the dying West is a path to prosperity and progress.

I am not suggesting that every action taken by the Chinese systems is sound or worth emulating. It would, however, be stupid to ignore the fact that whatever they are doing has worked infinitely better than whatever Indians are doing. I would go so far as to say that their system has, in aggregate, worked better than any other system we know. There are some in the West who want to believe that China stole jobs and technology from them, and you know what.. they are right. But we forget that the West stole entire continents and a lot of natural resources during age of colonization. The fact that China could modernize so quickly without overt colonization or stealing resources on a large-scale from other nations merely validates the superiority of their system.

The other series I want to write is about how modern environmentalism is a secular doomsday cult. Once again, I have written a few posts mentioning that topic in the past (link 1, link 2 and link 3), but none comes even remotely close to what I really think about that wretched belief system. I mean.. is it not obvious that a belief system based in apocalyptic thinking which requires its believers to constantly feel guilty and perform endless sacrifice and penance to obtain absolution from their alleged sins, headed by white-robed priests who never practice what they preach, is a sad secular reboot of Catholicism?

And how exactly are all those people heading various end-of-the-world cults different from white-robed people doing the same based on esoteric revealed “knowledge” aka computer simulations. Can you say, with a straight face, that running simulations engineered to produce whatever results you want and based on whatever inputs you choose, is science- let alone good science? FYI- I run computer simulations of far simpler, defined and understood physical systems for a living, and am well aware of their limitations even when the results are usually quite close to experimental observations. Anybody who tells you that we can model complex physical reality with very high or total certainty is lying through his or her teeth.

Anyway.. over the next 1-2 weeks, I plan to start series tackling both those issues. Is there a particular issue or sub-topic within those two which you would like me to address in more detail? Feel free to bring them up in the comments. It is getting late and I have to get some sleep now.

What do you think? Comments?

Brouhaha over Kavanaugh as an Accidental Genius Move by Democrats

October 8, 2018 17 comments

Over previous 2-3 days, CONservative media outlets have been masturbating with the pretense of joy over the Kavanaugh confirmation. Even usually non-mainstream CONservative alt-right losers are trying to portray it as some great “victory” for Trump. It is amusing to watch their hilarious Gollum death dance, largely because my understanding of history is large enough to know how this will all end. To understand what I am talking about, let me ask a simple question.. Why are there many policies and regulations, especially in USA, about sexual harassment?

Have you ever wondered if this was always the case? Surely, there must have been a time after women entered the workplace in large numbers when policies and regulations about sexual harassment were largely non-existent. Also, why is the issue of sexual harassment a much bigger deal in North America (especially USA) compared to West-Europe, to say nothing about parts of the world. And what does any of this have to do with moribund establishment Democrats making, what I consider to be, an accidentally genius move by opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

A couple of weeks before Y2K, I was an unusually young M.Sc student at one of those pre-Xmas departmental parties. After mixing among the crowd for a while, I ended up sitting down with two professors. After talking about a variety of topics, we came to the issue of sexual harassment because some well-known professor had been recently disciplined by the university for that infraction. Both told me that things used to be quite different even a decade ago, and one was happily married to a woman he started dating when she was his summer student.

When I asked them about their theories as to why things had changed so much and so fast, they were almost unanimous in blaming it on fallout from the ‘Anita Hill controversy’. At this time, I was vaguely aware that a woman named Anita Hill had accused a nominee to the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, of sexual harassment. I was also aware that her attempt to stop his nomination was not successful and republicans had tried to get her fired from a university.

I could not however, at that time, make a connection between the fallout of that controversy and the slew of policies and regulations concerning sexual harassment which were rolled out by large corporations as well as governmental institutions in the 1990s. Almost a couple of years passed. Then one Saturday night, I came across an administrative assistant (and her girlfriends?) whose office used to be along the route to my lab as a student. We briefly exchanged pleasantries and I introduced her to my companion as the secretary whose office was two doors away from the office that dealt with sexual harassment claims etc.

We had a quick laugh about it and then I asked her if that office was always there. She replied that they only came into being around 1993 or 1994 and something about Anita Hill. She also said that prior to this, women either did not complain or went through internal departmental channels if the harassment was especially persistent and severe. After a couple of more minutes during which I told her about my new job in a different part of that building complex, we went our own way. Though a bit drunk, something in my mind immediately made the connection between this incident and the one mentioned a couple of paragraphs above.

But I still could not understand how an incident which had occurred a decade ago and on other end of the continent had such a profound and widespread impact. And let us not forget that this was before everybody and their dog was on the internet and social media. Anyway.. the next morning after a cup of tea and with nothing else to do, I decided to spend some time on Google to find out when policies and regulations surrounding sexual harassment (as we know them today) came into being.This was in an era (1999-2011) when Google search was at it peak.

After searching for about an hour, I noticed a few persistent patterns. Firstly, most modern policies and offices to deal with sexual harassment in universities seem to have started in the early to mid 1990s. There were, of course, some outliers which had something like that as early as late 1980s. But the bulk of them came into existence with four to five years of the Anita Hill controversy. The same held true for large corporations. I briefly considered the possibility that this might be an artifact of the modern internet becoming public in 1994, but the clustering of dates was just too tight (and just before 1994).

After that, I decided to go out and get something to eat and walk around the more fashionable parts of that city. By the time I returned, this topic was nowhere in my conscious mind. Without much to do a Sunday night, I ordered a pizza and went about finishing the remaining two beers in my fridge. Because this was in the pre- YouTube era, I decided to watch some documentary on the Vietnam war on TLC\A&E\ History Channel (back when they broadcast stuff other than fake “reality shows” about pawn shops, truck drivers, naked survivalists and similar crap). Anyway.. this one was part of a series about why USA lost the Vietnam war.

One of the talking heads in that documentary was saying something about how USA never paid attention to how the Vietnamese perceived their presence in their country and then he said something to the effect of “we won every battle, but lost the war”. And this when I had my epiphany about how the Anita Hill controversy unintentionally gave rise to the policies and regulations surrounding sexual harassment as we know them today- at least in North America. Republican CONServatives (with the help of Democrats like Joe Biden) did win one battle by confirming that ugly toad, aka Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court- but they lost the war.

The attempts by Republicans and some Democrats to publicly humiliate Anita Hill to push through the nomination of that uncle Tom.. I mean Clarence Thomas, made her into an unintentional martyr for the cause of a certain ascendant brand of feminism. It also helped that the guy accused of sexual harassment was seriously lacking in the looks and personality department. Subsequent Googling revealed that women (especially white educated women) saw those hearings very differently from men. It did not help that her subsequent harassment by republicans and attempts to kick her out a university job made Anita Hill into a bonafide martyr for white educated professional women- the same ones who came to populate administrative positions in universities and large corporations.

It then occurred to me that the course of the movement against sexual harassment in North America might have been different if those myopic idiots had spiked the nomination of Clarence Thomas in favor of a less revolting corporate cock-sucker. But no.. those idiots had to “win” that battle. And this is how they lost the war and that is why we now have so many policies, regulations and all the other stuff surrounding sexual harassment. I cannot resist pointing out that “victory” of putting that Uncle Tom on the Supreme Court ended up costing many hundreds of thousands men their jobs, careers and promotions- not to mention social status.

Clarence Thomas was only accused of sexual harassment and most of this occurred before the internet and social media age (at least in their full-blown form). Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of sexual assault and worse. His looks, history, personality and demeanor have not helped sell his case to most women. FYI- most women do not constantly post on social media about supporting CONservative causes with their styled bleached hair or tits hanging half-out. Mark my words, this is going to get much uglier and far more consequential than what happened after Clarence Thomas was pushed through to the Court. And yes, this has very serious potential of helping Democrats in future elections- because face it, women universally and viscerally hate mediocre men trying to force them to into uncompensated sex.

What do you think? Comments?

Kavanaugh Confirmation is American Version of Brezhnev 1979 Speech

October 6, 2018 14 comments

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of my two recent posts about why the nomination and attempt to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court were incredibly bad ideas with huge potential for future disasters due to second/third order effects. To be clear, I have always seen that court as a regressive institution whose primay function is the maintenance of status quo for the wealthy and corporations, at the expense of everyone else. I also wrote that confirming him would be the best surprise gift for establishment Democrats since Trump’s 2016 electoral victory.

Putting an entitled effeminate man credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults and a poor liar, like Kavanaugh, to the Court does wonders for the ability of otherwise moribund establishment Democrats to motivate voters as well as collect donations. And yes.. it does matters a lot how Kavanaugh appears to most women of reproductive age, and not just due to of his stance on abortion. As I keep on saying, he is a living breathing embodiment of the mental image most women have of that rich but unattractive asshole who tried to sexually assault them.

Let us be honest about it, a guy who had to corner women in a room or stick his penis in front of their face was not making them wet in the first place. Sadly, there are more than a few retarded men who want to believe that all CONservative women will steadfastly support that loser because they came across a few photos of a minuscule number of attention-whoring barbie CONservatives pretending to do just that on Twitter. First of all, most CONservative women are post-menopausal, tending towards senility and on their way out. More importantly, most of their daughters don’t share their belief system and never will.

And do not, for one moment, assume that there will be no future revelations about Kavanaugh. On the contrary, we are going to see and hear a lot more about the misadventures of Brett and his friends at Georgetown Prep and Yale. And ya.. establishment Democrats will keep hammering away at him- largely because it increases voter turnout and nets them more donor cash. If you don’t believe me, just look at what they have built out of the ludicrous accusation that Trump is a Russian puppet. This is going to be a long.. long road.

But what does any of this have to do with Leonid Brezhnev‘s now infamous televised address from December 1979? Also who was this guy? For those of you born after mid-1980s, Leonid Brezhnev was the leader of the erstwhile- USSR from 1964 to 1982. In other words, his political career began and ended before many of us were born or old enough to understand things. But as you will soon see, all of this is very relevant to the USA of 2018.

So here is a quick historic primer about the actors and context to this event. Leonid Brezhnev came into power in 1964 after Nikita Khrushchev was deposed by an internal coup. It is fair to say that he was chosen because he was seen as least likely to rock the boat, especially since his predecessor was well.. kinda impulsive and often did things without carefully thinking through the consequences. This is not to say that Khrushchev wasn’t an effective leader. It is just that other people near the top preferred somebody more predictable and boring.

Initially, it looked like a good choice. As some of you know, USSR experienced massive real growth and improvement in living standards for its people from 1946 to the early 1970s. Did I mention that this occurred in spite of the chronic stupidity and short-sightedness of its political elite. Long story short, the first few years of Brezhnev’s “leadership” were good for most people. Then the consequences of previous bad choices and attempts to copy the most disastrous aspects of western capitalism caused economic stagnation.

The later years of his “leadership” were also characterized by a general social and intellectual malaise throughout the country, partially caused by regressive social CONservativism. By the late 1970s, many Russians had started to express serious doubt (in their private circles) about the direction and future of their country. But this being USSR, those doubts were almost never aired in forums larger than your close family and intimate friends. While Gulags were a thing of the past, nobody wanted to risk job promotions or attract extra scrutiny from the security apparatus.

Back to Brezhnev.. as we now know, his health declined a lot in later years to the point where, by 1979, he was a mere shadow of his former self. Of course, he never expressed a serious desire to resign (that we know of) and the other people at top were not especially interested in replacing him before his death. For some years, they were able to hide the extent of his physical deterioration from the public. However, towards the end- it was very obvious. And then he decided to record that televised address in December 1979.

By now, some of you must be wondering.. “what is exact connection between the recent farce of Kavanaugh’s confirmation and some televised address made by an old and sick leader of USSR in 1979”? Well.. both are pivotal moments for the loss of public confidence in existing systems of governance. Confused? Let me explain.

In the very late 1990s to early 2000s period, I performed research at a couple of places alongside many immigrants from the eastern block, including Russia. Almost every one of them was about 10-20 years older than me. We often used to talk about non-research related stuff including how things went south in USSR after 1980. During the course of these discussions I noticed something peculiar. While each one of them reached their moment of epiphany about the future of USSR through an often unique set of circumstances, a majority made at least passing mention of the speeches and public appearances made by Brezhnev from 1979 till his death.

But why would people remember a few routine speeches made during that time period? More importantly, why did they connect them to the final collapse of USSR in 1991? At that time, internet video sites such as YouTube did not exist, and my options for further investigating such stuff on the internet was restricted to reading transcripts, archived newspaper articles etc. A few years later (around 2004 or 2005) I came across a highly edited clip of one such speech while watching some TLC/A&E/History channel documentary about USSR in the 1980s. And yes, it looked like he was not doing too well.

But I still could not understand why people who grew up during time remembered the ambiance of those speeches. A few more years later, I finally came across a YouTube clip of one such speech. It was then that I started to realize why people who were around when that speech was first broadcast associated it with the beginning of end for USSR. Long story short, if you watch the speech, a few things quickly becomes obvious. Firstly, Brezhnev was in pretty bad shape and not just physically. Secondly he seemed unaware of, or did not care about, the severity of his medical problems. Nobody around him was trying to help him beyond doing perfunctory stuff.

To summarize, those speeches (including the one linked below) mass-validated the worst fears people in that country harbored about the system but were afraid to discuss with anyone outside of their close social circle. It was now obvious to almost everyone that those in charge were seriously disconnected from reality and were not even trying to put on a proper dog-and-pony show. It also revealed that almost everyone at the top was looking out for themselves, and nobody else. And don’t forget that this came at the end of almost a decade of economic and social stagnation. Even people who had some real faith in ability of that system to solve problems could no longer believe that was likely. It was all just too hard to ignore and look past.

The Kavanaugh confirmation is the contemporary american version of Brezhnev’s televised speeches from 1979. You cannot look at that shitshow and pretend it was anything but a shitshow. You cannot look at that guy, his bad acting, constant lying and still pretend that he was a good person. You cannot make a plausible case that the guy is anything beyond a sadly mediocre, but born rich, asshole who had sex with unconscious women when he was in high school. But most importantly, you cannot ignore that the system to confirm such an atrocious person to the Supreme Court worked just as it was intended.

FYI- only the edited version of Brezhnev’s speech in this clip was eventually televised. But even it was full of obviously slurred words and odd body language.

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting Writers: Caitlin Johnstone

October 5, 2018 4 comments

Over the past few months, I have read many interesting posts on Medium by a journalist/writer known as Caitlin Johnstone. Her more well-known work is on contemporary new items, though she does write on more abstract topics. In any case, it is well worth a visit and read.

Link to Medium Homepage: Caitlin Johnstone on Medium

Link to Twitter handle: Caitlin Johnstone on Twitter

And here are links to three recent and relevant posts.

Link # 1: Forgiveness Is Overrated

The concept of forgiveness is a recurring theme in any abusive relationship, and necessarily so, because without extensive value being placed upon that concept there wouldn’t be a relationship. You wouldn’t have a battered wife, you’d have a story about how a woman’s boyfriend hit her one time and she grabbed all her stuff and split. You wouldn’t have a brainwashed and exploited cult member, you’d have a story about how someone met a group of people and left when things got weird. You wouldn’t have a major world religion consistently embroiled in horrifying scandals, you’d have people dismissing that religion and placing their energy and attention elsewhere. You wouldn’t have a society that constantly allows itself to be manipulated into consenting to abuse and exploitation by an aristocratic class, you’d have a people’s uprising in which the vastly outnumbered elites are shrugged off and replaced with a system which benefits humanity.

Link # 2: The Enemy Of Humanity Will Never, Ever Look Like This Again

Despite all the warnings that we were given in the lead-up to the 2016 election about the Nazi dystopian future America would quickly find itself in should Queen Hillary fail to be properly coronated, what we have actually seen since Trump’s election is a foreign policy that is in practice almost indistinguishable from that of his globalist predecessors, and a domestic policy which sees George W Bush campaigning for Trump’s virulently pro-establishment Supreme Court nominee. When you strip away the blind, fawning hero-worship of his supporters and the shrieking, garment-rending hysteria of his opponents, instead examining the actual behavior of this administration, the sitting president looks an awful lot like a fairly conventional Republican scumbag with about as many differences from Obama as Obama had from Bush.

Link # 3: Trump’s “Opposition” Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsense

The US Senate has just passed Trump’s mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote. The eight senators who voted “nay”? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war. Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they’ve been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they’ve been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. The reason for this is very simple: President Trump’s ostensible political opposition does not oppose President Trump. They’re on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don’t stand up to Trump because, as Julian Assange once said, they are Trump.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage: 2

October 4, 2018 17 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote that using escorts for over a decade changes how one sees the world- in ways most cannot even imagine. Normie relationships, once a tolerable option to escorts, now feel pathetic and devoid of meaning. Many ideologies from MRA and traditionalism to MGTOW and new-agey BS sounds ridiculous, though to be fair.. one can reach that conclusion by many other routes. The same is true of most ‘game’ and ‘seduction’ communities, which bear more than a passing resemblance to religious and secular cults.

But what does any of this have to do with special insights provided by using escorts for well over a decade? Surely, one can arrive at the same conclusions about relationships, ideologies and belief systems without using escorts.. right? Well.. yes, you certainly can arrive at broadly similar conclusions via many other pathways. The difference comes down to how you integrate all of it into a self-consistent mental model of human behavior and society. Confused? Don’t be.. I will explain everything in detail (as much as is possible and prudent).

But before we go any further, there is one thing I want to be open about. Some of my older posts might give the impression that the switch from getting sporadic “unpaid” sex to purchasing it regularly was relatively quick and complete. The real story is more complicated. While I did start using escorts in the early 2000s and have not stopped since, I did not give up on the idea of normie relationships right away. It was almost 2010, before I finally gave up on it. Readers might see a connection between that time frame and my first posts on this blog.

There was a period of almost 8-9 years where I was used escorts regularly, but had not totally given up on the idea of having long-term relationships. Some of you might say.. “but didn’t you have some atrocious prior experiences with attempts at normie relationships. Well.. yes, that is true. However, I did get some sporadic and mediocre ass during those years and part of me never stopped wondering if it was possible to improve on that.

But where did I get this odd idea? As some of you might remember, I did not take any student loans during my M.Sc and money was tight during those years. During that time period, I often wondered if my chances at getting decent-looking chicks without mental issues would have been better if I had a decent job, more money or preferably both. A few months after finishing my M.Sc, I finally got a reasonably OK job that paid really well for being part-time. Adjusted for inflation, it would be around 50k in 2018 and with zero student loans or debt of any kind. Not bad for working noon-5pm, five days a week.

I started going out more, buying nice clothes and shoes, eating in nice restaurants and generally living a comfortable life. This is also when I first started to use escorts and also help a few poor chicks in exchange for personal services. I also tried meeting women through a variety of routes- from bars and pubs, book readings and concerts to internet dating sites. And yes, I did meet a few somewhat acceptable women through those routes. However, the attitude of those few along with the very high number of racists, flakes and delusional women pushed me further and further way from conventional dating.

I mean.. why would I invest so much time, effort and patience into meeting women or developing relationships when all I really wanted (sex with hot women) could be purchased at a reasonable hourly rate? You could say that this was this was the beginning of my permanent disillusionment with dating. But why, then, did I not lose all hope in finding relationships at that time? Well.. there are a couple or reasons. Firstly, some of my quasi-financial relationships with poor chicks were emotionally satisfying enough to keep alive that possibility. Secondly, I felt that moving to a more cosmopolitan city might alleviate issues related to racism.

A couple of years later, I got a full-time job near a large cosmopolitan city. This one paid even better than the previous one (obviously!) and the work environment was generally good. So I did what I had done previously on a larger scale. Long story short- I went to tons of different bars, large public events, talked up many chicks in public settings, tried many dating sites etc. Just to clear, I never stopped using escorts. Sure.. I was more successful in the conventional sense (especially in bars frequented by cougars and heavy drinkers) and did manage to bang a few OK looking chicks who I first met under ‘normal’ circumstances.

However the amount of time and effort I had to put into getting decent looking chicks was just too high, as compared to just using escorts. Banging a chubby chick who waits tables at some nearby restaurant is a far inferior experience to banging a model-level escort. OK.. a 20-year old moderately chubby chick who likes to take a pounding is not bad, but what do you do after that? Similarly, doing it with an average-looking 30-something chick (with a BF) who worked as a cook in yet another restaurant pales next to an enthusiastic pretty spinner who looks deliciously underage. But there was more to this than looks alone..

I never felt a real emotional or intellectual connection with any of these women. I never felt any certainty about a potential relationship. I never felt my life would be somehow incomplete without them. I never felt anything beyond what I had already felt for women who have sex for money. Conventional relationships started to feel like a sad charade which provided less than what one can buy but require much more time and personal involvement. This is also the one period in my life where I drank a lot, almost every single day. In retrospective, this had a lot to do with a general dissatisfaction about my attempts at forming relationships.

Since we are already at a thousand words, I will wrap up this post now. In the next one, I will tell you how my attempts at relationships (after the second job) during my PhD ended up validating what I had long suspected about relationships. FYI- It was towards the end of this next period that I finally become the deeply cynical and misanthropic person you all know today. This post has a lot of Is, doesn’t it?

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Channel: Rambalac

October 3, 2018 Leave a comment

As some of you know, the majority of JBloggers and Jvloggers are white attention-whores using Japan (and Japanese people) to build up an internet presence- especially on YouTube. Did I also mention my disdain for click-baity content? There are only so many times you can watch a white guy or girl visit japanese restaurants, traditional hotels and nightspots before it becomes boring.

But once in a while, you do come across a YT channel which actually has unique, interesting and well-shot content. The channel linked to in this post contains a number of long walks through various locations in Japan. It helps that the videos are well stabilized, without commentary and have footage of locations that are normal rather than touristy.

Link to YouTube Channel: Rambalac

Clip # 1: Backstreets of Japan at Night. Not sure about the precise locations shown in this sequence, but the photographer displays a high degree of familiarity with this area. Two things struck me about this video: a] Even the low-rise parts of Japanese cities are pretty crowded with buildings and b] Even these less busy mixed-use parts are really clean and well maintained.

Clip #2: Morning Walk through Yoyogi Park. Contains footage of a large and picturesque park during the cherry blossom blooming season. It is interesting that they can build and maintain such nice public places in Japan, especially when you compare it (and others like it) to the dismal state of equivalent public spaces in USA. Says a lot about the priorities of both cultures.

What do you think? Comments?