Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 4

August 1, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made the point that pathological ideologies and their willing vectors never give up doing what they are doing unless the vast majority of them they are dead. I had made a similar point in a short series written almost five years ago (link 1, link 2). My point was that genocides committed during course of WW2 required a significant minority of people to be enthusiastic followers of whichever ideology they claimed to believe or practise.

With that in mind, let us consider a few thought experiments to understand the necessity of vectors for success or failure of pathological ideologies. On another note, please read the entirety of this post before commenting on it..

Thought Experiment # 1: Consider the artificially caused Irish Famine of 1845-1849. More specifically, let us consider whether the vast majority of deaths during those years were caused by a genuine lack of food or a system of governance which saw and treated most of the Irish as little better than stray animals. There are many villains in this story, some more well-known that others. Nowadays, many people rightly blame the laws passed by the British government in decades prior to that incident as well as their lack of response in response to human suffering. But were they the only villains, and more importantly- who enforced their laws in Ireland?

Well.. the unpleasant part of that famine and many others in the same era was the role played by local landed gentry and law enforcement personal in enforcing laws and regulations which caused the famine. Holding only the British government responsible for that famine gives a pass to all the Irish landlords, merchants, petty bureaucrats and law-enforcement types who made tons of money during the famine while their country men and women were starving around them. The Irish famine would not have been possible without the active and enthusiastic collaboration of many local CONservative-minded rich and petit bourgeois types who worked hard to make it so.

Now comes the ‘thought experiment’ part.. Imagine that the willing collaborators and their families kept on dying of an untreatable disease with extremely high mortality- which for an odd reason affected them almost exclusively. Imagine that the disease in question killed off over 50% of the collaborators and their families within a year. Now ask yourself, how long could the British government of that era keep on replacing all their faithful dead servants, if the new ones kept experiencing the same high rates of mortality? And why would even the most greedy and sociopathic types want to accept a job that came with almost certain death within a year.

Thought Experiment # 2: Consider Late Victorian Holocausts, especially in India. These are a series of famines which killed anywhere between 30-60 million people in the second half of the 19th century- and does not include tens of millions who died in similar artificial famines in the same countries between 1775-1850. These numbers, among many others, provide an interesting counterpoint to claims about death by famine under state communism in the first half (or so) of 20th century. If you believe that state communism caused the Ukrainian famine of 1930s and Chinese famine of early 1960s, one also has to accept that capitalism caused an equivalent of deaths in the 19th century.

But this post is not about whether capitalism caused these famines (it most certainly did) or whether racism played a major role in how events unfolded (shockers.. it did), but about who was responsible for causing the tens of millions of deaths. Once again, we can certainly blame the British government of that era, but doing so tells us only a small part of how things went down. Here is why.. you see, there were never more than 100 k British stationed in any part or the whole of India at any time from 1775-1947. In fact, there were less than 30 k people from the British Isles in India in most years. So, how can you entirely blame such large-scale events on presence of an absolute minority who never accounted for more than 1 in 500 individuals?

And once again, the answer to this apparent ‘mystery’ is that British had a huge number of local collaborators who were willing and enthusiastic about working for a system which was responsible for the death of millions of people who looked like them. Today, we often forget that policies which caused these famines also made many Indian merchant families rich beyond your wildest imaginations. Many Indians still do not want to face the unpleasant fact that the Indian army, police, local administrators etc which carried out the genocidal mandates for British colonial types were almost exclusively local and Indian. In other words, it was basically what happened during the great Irish famine but on a much larger scale and over multiple time periods.

Now let us perform a similar ‘though experiment’. Imagine a situation where willing Indian collaborators and their families kept on dying of untreatable disease with rates of mortality such that entire batches or recruits for various colonial institutions dropped dead within a year. Now ask yourself again, how long could the British government of that era keep on replacing faithful dead servants, if the new ones kept experiencing the same greatly enhanced rates of mortality? Also, would it be possible for them to be able to continue recruitment if the recruits knew they would be dead within a year? And would they be able to govern India without local collaborators?

The point I am trying to make in both thought experiments is that external state sponsored events such the Great Irish famine and large Indian famines were only possible only because a small but significant minority of local people were willing and enthusiastic about working for obviously pathological ideologies. Furthermore, timely removal of this small but significant minority from the realms of living would have effectively terminated those mass tragedies and prevented the untimely deaths of many millions of innocent people. The real question then is, what level of excessive mortality among a behavioral minority who are enthusiastic participants in a genocide is acceptable in order to prevent deaths of many times that number of innocent people.

In the next part of this series, I will use some more thought experiments to explain this concept in more detail.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Most Likely Mode of Discreditation for TransGenderism Ideology

July 28, 2018 21 comments

Many of you might have noticed, over the past five years, that not a day goes by without some mainstream media outlet publishing a piece or two about how biological gender is passé and becoming transgender is somehow the hippest, coolest or bravest thing to do. They also seem to promote the viewpoint that becoming transgender somehow results in people becoming happy and mysteriously solving many of their problems. Oddly enough, these same ivy-league anointed presstitutes are still amused by the idea of male members of the Heaven’s Gate cult undergoing voluntary castration in order to meet space aliens.

Then again, recent human history has no shortage of equally peculiar ideologies becoming fashionable for a period of time before being exposed as highly problematic and then becoming extremely disreputable. Did you, for example, know that the idea of forcibly separating the children of first-nation people in Canada and Australia to be “educated” in residential schools was once considered sound public policy? Or how about the once widespread public acceptance for forced sterilization of poor and non-white women In USA? Or how a bizarre surgical procedure such as lobotomy were once seen as a cure-all for anything that looked like “mental illness”.

I could give you many more examples such as race-based eugenics, recovery of memories of ritual satanic abuse etc .. but you get the point. Anyway, let us talk about why the transgender ideology as it being promoted today is almost certain to meet the same end as a number of these now utterly discredited and highly noxious ideologies. But before we go there, let us talk about the difference between that ideology and sexual orientation. To be more precise, let us talk about why sexual orientation is a totally different creature than transgenderism.

Firstly, the fact that a percentage of people prefer being sexually intimate with somebody of their own sex has been common knowledge throughout human history. There have always been gay men, lesbian women and bi-sexual men and women. If you don’t believe me just look the art, literature, stories and other documentary evidence from non-christian cultures and even some christian cultures. Do you think all those extremely close male friends of certain famous roman emperors were just friends? Do you think that the Pope who commissioned Michelangelo to paint frescoes in St. Peter’s Basilica was not aware of his sexual orientation? Do you think people in 17th-19th century were oblivious about what went aboard sailing ships with all-male crews?

And this brings me to the second relevant difference between sexual orientation and the ideology of transgenderism. When was the last time homosexuality was promoted as somehow ethically or morally superior to heterosexuality? The vast majority of gay men will always tell you that they discovered while growing up that they were born with said sexual orientation. The same goes for lesbian women and bi-sexual men and women. They simply wanted true legal equality and freedom from harassment and discrimination- which is something any rational person can agree with. And now, we have legal equality for them in most western countries.

By now, you might have figured out that I have no issue whatsoever with people finding their sexual orientation as they grow up. As you will soon see, there is a reason why I have highlighted some words in previous sentence and paragraph. To understand what I am getting at, let us talk a bit about myself- specifically my strong preferences for certain body types in women and certain BDSM practices. So how did I come to know that I preferred women with toned and curvy behinds or how did I figure out that I was into spanking willing women? Well.. the simple answer is that I just kept on going towards what I really liked over a period of years.

I did not reach my current physical preferences in women or sexual practices because those were considered fashionable or because somebody else told me or encouraged me in that direction. I reached there on my own and am therefore completely satisfied with the destination. But what does any of this have to do with the failure mode of transgenderism as an ideology? And why did I talk about all those other now discredited and noxious ideologies with no apparent connection to transgenderism near the beginning of this post?

What is the real connection between highly abusive residential schools for first-nation children, forced sterilization based on consideration of race-based eugenics, the use of horrendous surgical procedures such as lobotomy and the transgender ideology in its current form? Well.. it comes down to the validity of consent given by of those damaged by such “interventions”. To put it another way, if a person of sound mind who has reached the age of legal consent decides that they want to undergo surgery for transitioning into somebody of the opposite sex- well.. that is their right. And as long as they are aware of the realistic limitations that such a change would have on the quality of their life- that is their business.

But what about children and adolescents who do not have the range of life experiences and mental maturity necessary to make such a life altering decision? And this is not simply a “will nobody think of the children” type question. Consider for example, the consequences of an overenthusiastic mother putting her male child, who allegedly displays some feminine tendencies, on drugs to block puberty. What happens if the subject of such an intervention grows up to regret its effects? Is the mother and the “medical professionals” who supported and facilitated such a decision guilty of castrating that child? And this is the most likely scenario, since mothers seeking male-to-female transitions for their allegedly trans male child are far more common than mother seeking a female-to-male transition for their female child.

Or what about clinics who dole out hormone blockers and bilateral orchidectomies to any adolescent complaining of something hastily diagnosed as ‘gender dysphoria’? What happens when some teenage boy with mental health issues who thinks he is ‘trans’ and undergoes an orchidectomy grows up to regret that decision? What if the teenage boy makes that decision based on an air-brushed promise that transition to a woman will somehow improve his life? Who is responsible if the subject of such an irreversible surgery believes he was lied to by medical professionals? Are you now starting to appreciate how horrendously problematic the current elite and media driven fascination with helping children and adolescents to ‘transition’ could become?

How bad could the delayed backlash really be? Let me help you understand with a few thought experiments and examples.. Would you, for example, dare to support the ‘aboriginal residential schools system’ in polite company in Canada or Australia? If now, why not? Would you support raced-based eugenics, forced sterilization and lobotomies at your office Christmas party and still have a job in the coming year? Remember that they were all once “common sense” policies supported by the majority and governments of that era. Heck.. those who still support them on twitter are fearful of their employers and friends finding out.

Did you know that Penn State university will have to pay over 220 million to survivors of the eponymous sexual abuse scandal. And that is secondary to the reputational costs of that scandal to recruitment for their famous football program. Or what about the massive reputational hit to USA Gymnastics and 500 million dollar payout by Michigan State University because they looked the other way while Larry Nassar diddled hundreds of little girls under his care? Can you now imagine a catholic priest without also thinking of the enormous sexual abuse scandal and coverup within the catholic church. And remember, the vast majority of children affected by those scandals were only mentally scarred.

Now try to imagine the size of the shit-storm, a decade from now, when thousands of children and adolescents who were transitioned while legally minor or under air-brushed assurances realize that they are very unhappy with results of irreversible surgical and medical procedures. Even the loudest squawking by ‘trans’ activists will then have no effect on the course of events, resulting in the utter discreditation of these ‘activists’ in popular public perception. We have seen this story many times before, and it always ends badly for the ‘activists’ and whatever bullshit cause they are promoting.

Have a feeling that responses to this post will necessitate another one on this topic.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jul 27, 2018

July 27, 2018 2 comments

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

Reverse Cowgirl Cuties: Jul 26, 2018 – Amateur cuties riding it, reverse cowgirl style.

Amateur Doggystyled Cuties: Jul 26, 2018 – Amateur cuties taking it, doggystyle

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 3

July 25, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I pointed out that WW1 (and WW2) led to a marked reduction in the number of mediocre men in Europe who were willing or able to support the ideology of race-based colonialism. FYI- I am not implying that remainder of population in those countries experienced enlightenment and became liberal after 1945. It just so happened that the survivors finally realized they were just disposable tools who did not benefit from sustaining and working for the ideology in question which hen lost it critical mass of followers.

Also said something about discussing the effect of WW2 on continued viability of ideologies such as German Nazism, Japanese Nationalism and associated belief systems such as Eugenics. Well.. I am going to do that now. But before we go there, let us talk about how all or any of this relates to the world we live in right now. So let us start by asking ourselves with a few questions about why things in the world around us are the way they are.

Why did all the non-violent movements which began in response to the global financial crisis of 2008 (Occupy Wallstreet etc) not translate into anything beyond spicy memes and memorable slogans? Why have large public demonstrations against extra-judicial murder of black men by police in USA not reduced their incidence? Why does the debt load of students attending universities in USA keep on climbing every single year to even more ridiculous levels? Why do costs of mediocre healthcare in USA keep on rising every year?

Why do elected officials, bureaucrats and the ‘system’ in general act is if they can get way with anything they want? Why do working conditions for the average person keep on getting worse with each passing year? Why do large corporations feel so confident in their ability to abuse their customers without any real consequences? Why does the militarization of “law enforcement” apparatus in USA continue unabated? Why do petty bureaucrats, alt-right supporters and SJWs think they can harass and abuse others at will?

The very simplistic answer to those questions is that all those people, groups and entities firmly believe that they can get away with whatever they want because they will no repercussions or accountability for their actions. A significantly longer answer starts with acknowledging something that most people are unwilling to, namely that you cannot convert assholes, parasites and viruses into someone who is not noxious. People who build their existence around being an asshole, parasite, virus or an ardent supporter of noxious ideologies are never going to have an epiphany or willing give up being abusers.

Nazism did not decline into insignificance and become disreputable because its supporters saw the light of reason. Nazism became a disreputable and insignificant ideology because most of its ardent supporters were killed on the eastern front in WW2 or died in soviet ‘labor’ camps after WW2. Oh.. and most women in the eastern part of Germany were raped by Russian soldiers after WW2. To put it another way, even marginal supporters of Nazism had to pay a very heavy price for their previous support of that ideology.

Lets just say that it took a lot of effort to make sure that Nazism became a highly disreputable and marginal ideology. And you know something else.. there was realistically no other way to reach that endpoint. Do you really think that ardent believers in Nazism would have changed their ways if they had just been exposed to another viewpoint, received a better education, read more books or witnessed non-violent demonstrations against that ideology? Do you think they would have changed their viewpoints if they had interacted with more Jews or Russians?

The point I am trying to make is that supporters of ideologies which attract members through the promise of a license to inflict pain and death on innocent people cannot be reasoned or bargained with. The ultra-nationalists who flourished in Japan between 1919-1945 did have genuine grievances with international system of that era. They were also correct about Japan being short-changed after WW1. The Nazis too rose to public popularity based on genuine grievances such the highly unfair nature of Versailles treaty and the Great Depression which started in 1929.

But that does not excuse what Nazis did to millions of Eastern Europeans and Jews or Japanese did to millions more in China and Korea. But more importantly, a large part of the mass appeal of both ideologies was that they provided an opportunity and excuse for mediocre CONservative men in both countries to torture and kill millions in other countries. Let us not pretend that the vast majority of ardent supporters of Nazism and Japanese nationalism actually cared about the ideology they allegedly believed in, other than as justification for torture and murder.

Ideology, you see, is simply a self-justification for behavior. You cannot, therefore, destroy a noxious ideology by exposing its internal contradictions, hilarious irrationality and general emptiness. Ardent supporters of noxious ideologies use them as mental crutches to justify what they want to do while still being able to claim to themselves that they are “good”, “moral” and “law-abiding” persons. Noxious ideologies can only be destroyed once most of their ardent supporters are dead and the rest discredited as losers in conflicts.

In the next part, I will write more on how the mental crutch provided by ideologies such as Nazism and Japanese nationalism allowed its supporters to perform truly horrible acts in the 20th century. I will also compare that to how belief in race-based colonialism was used by mediocre CONservative men from European countries to justify equally horrific acts in the 19th century.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 2

July 21, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made a point that two of most widespread and noxious ideologies of 20th century (race-based colonialism and nationalism) became functionally extinct in Europe largely because most of their “footsoldiers” died in a series of armed conflicts during first half of that century. To put it more bluntly- tens of millions of mediocre white (and Japanese) men, who would have otherwise been staunch supporters and defenders of both ideologies, got killed or physically and mentally fucked up by wars between 1914 and 1945.

You might also recall that I said something about why the mindset of those killed, maimed or mentally scarred had a large influence on the course of global history after 1945. So what was the mindset and worldview of these mediocre white men who became functionally extinct in Europe after 1945? A good place to start is the world in which they grew up. To make a long story short, the vast majority of these mediocre and reactionary men came from either an agricultural or working class background. This does not mean that they were all retarded.. just that they came from an environment where thinking objectively was not encouraged.

But that, by itself, is not enough to understand the unusually high prevalence of reactionary CONservatism among this group. For that, one has to first appreciate how a series of large socio-economic changes in late 19th century Europe affected an already CONservative rural agricultural class. Large-scale industrialization of Europe, contrary to what some of you might believe, did not start till 1860s. Even more importantly, certain ideas such as standardized compulsory basic schooling and nationalism did not become a big thing till the 1880s. You will see why those two things matter, later in the post.

Those dates are, however, important because the era between 1850 and 1900 was the true peak of European colonialism. After 1900, differences in relative abilities between colonizers and colonized started decreasing to the point where Europeans had to flee from even their last African colonies by mid-1960s. To put it another way, it was possible for a large number of the mediocre white men born between.. say.. 1850 and 1900 to actually believe that they were the “chosen people”. These simpletons also believed that staunchly supporting and serving their hyper-greedy national elite (who were happy to indulge racism of lower classes) was a winning strategy.

And for a few decades, it all seemed to work. But the world around does not stand still, and some now powerful countries which did not have large colonial possessions started resenting others which had entered the colonialism game many decades before them. The older models of governance in many of these countries were also not scaling well to the era of industrialization and resultant socio-economic changes. Development of weapon and logistics-related technology since the last large intra-European wars was, however, the biggest wild card.

While every large European power at that time was arming and rearming itself to the teeth, they all pretended that long drawn out wars were not feasible. Luckily, for the rest of humanity, it was feasible and all major powers experienced millions of ‘untimely’ deaths among men of prime working age and many millions more were made invalid for life. And we have not even started talking about associated civilian deaths and all those millions who died during 1918-1919 because of the great influenza pandemic that followed WW1.

While most belligerent countries lost between 2-5% of their population due to WW1, those losses was heavily concentrated among men of ages between 18-35. I have seen some studies which show that, in some countries like France and Germany, almost 50% of men in that age group were either dead or disabled by early 1919. Entire villages and towns in UK lost most of their young men, and entire cohorts of men who went to public school and oxbridge in UK were no longer alive by end of WW1. And we have not even touched on the massive demographic effects of the Russian civil war between 1917-1922.

Some might see it as a tragedy.. I prefer to see the partial extinction of a whole category of reactionary and CONservative minded men in and immediately after WW1 in a more positive light. Let us face it.. WW1 did remove a ton of mediocre and reactionary men who happened to be big supporters and cheerleaders of race-based colonialism from the reproductive pool. The aftermath of WW1 also exposed how full of shit the elites of those countries were. To make a long story short, the government of most countries involved in WW1 went to considerable lengths to avoid paying proper pensions and compensation to relatives of the dead and disabled.

The point I am trying to make is that WW1 resulted in death of a large percentage of most ardent supporters of race-based colonialism and disillusioned others who escaped with just a permanent disability or poverty. Did I mention that nationalism boosted by then new universal primary education was the ‘opium’ of these masses. While a reduction in support of race-based colonialism is not immediately obvious, the number of men who entered colonial services of European countries (or supported politicians who championed the ‘old ways’) took a terminal dive after WW1. Of course, it would take WW2 to finish the all that good work started by WW1.

In the next post of this series, I will talk about how WW2 put the proverbial headstone on grave of race-based colonialism and destroyed public support for militant nationalism and associated ideologies.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jul 17, 2018

July 17, 2018 Leave a comment

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

Amateur Doggystyled Cuties: Jul 17, 2018 – Amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

More Amateur Doggystyled Cuties: Jul 17, 2018 – More amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 1

July 15, 2018 31 comments

While I considered writing a short click-baity post about the latest misadventures of Elon Musk or something about the silliness of establishment’s latest bout of hyperventilation about Trump, Putin and Russia, I thought it would be better to complete something I have meaning to post for sometime. This post, is the first in a series, of what it actually takes to destroy a pathological ideology so thoroughly that it can never be resurrected. To be clear, I am not suggesting a course of action- just point out the obvious based on a historical analysis.

Some of the ideas put forth in this post, and series, have part of an older series (link 1, link 2). I have also written a few standalone posts (link 3, link 4, link 5) which touch on some concepts I am going to discuss in some detail. In case you are wondering, the gist of all those linked older posts is that willing and enthusiastic followers of a malicious ideology are the true agents of evil perpetrated by that ideology. Let me remind you that there is little to no evidence that most so-called tyrants and ideologues personally killed even a few people. Instead, every single death attributed to them was due to their followers doing the actually dirty work for them.

With that in mind, let us talk about factors responsible for extinction of two major and particularly noxious ideologies that were once widespread in the 20th century. The first ideology is best described as race-based white colonialism of non-white countries (especially in Asia and Africa). The second is militant and race-based nationalism of the type which dominated Germany and Japan during the 1930-1945 time-span. Most people living in countries where these ideologies were once dominant will today, at least in public, take great effort to disavow them. However, their ancestors once were ardent supporters of, and proud foot-soldiers for, these ideologies.

So.. how did we get from a world where people in the west were vocal and open about their “god-given right” to rob, abuse and murder non-whites to one where even an attempt to praise colonialism can get you fired from your job. How did we get from a world where ‘the west’ could occupy any non-white country it chose to one where a small Asian country like Vietnam could beat both France and USA (after WW2) and haunt their national psyches. Why was post-WW2 decolonization of the African continent so rapid? Why are people in Germany and Japan today so unwilling to praise anything or anybody connected to the period between 1930 and 1945?

The very brief, and polite answer, to those questions is that a number of “occurrences” in the first half of 20th century greatly reduced the number of vectors for ideologies such as race-based colonialism and militant nationalism. The long-form answer starts with acknowledging that many common people, in countries where those ideologies were once dominant, were willing and highly enthusiastic supporters of those ideologies. For example.. a lot of people (especially young men of limited means) in countries such as UK and France once were true believers in race-based colonialism. Similarly, many in 1930-1945 era Germany and Japan were enthusiastic believers in the noxious militant nationalistic ideologies which they came to repudiate- after 1945.

To understand what I am talking about, let us compare the noxious ideologies of past to similar ones prevalent in present-day USA. As the more perceptive of you might have noticed, there is no shortage of american idiots of a reactionary mindset and mediocre cognitive capabilities who will support tons of stupid and dangerous things which do not benefit them such as involvement endless wars in foreign countries, support for outrageous levels of military spending, opposition to public spending on healthcare because if might benefit the “coloreds” etc. To be fair- people who think like this are now a minority, but a significant minority nonetheless.

And this brings us to the obvious question- why are European and Japanese equivalents of these CONservative idiots far less numerous? The simple answer is that many of them died in WW1, inter-war conflicts and WW2. The ones who survived those “occurrences” were seen by the rest of their society as losers who should not be emulated. The more complex version of this story is that WW1, inter-war conflicts in Europe and WW2 resulted in disproportional deaths of young white men of reactionary mindset and mediocre cognitive ability regardless of whether the belligerent nations recruited for their armed forces through patriotism or conscription.

The sheer number of deaths and disabilities due to those wars, Influenza pandemic of 1918 and all those Nazis who died in Russian prison camps after WW2 removed tens of millions of useful idiots who would have otherwise helped further causes such as race-based colonialism and militant nationalism. The low number of deaths due to those wars in USA (because it joined both almost 3 years after had started) is, sadly, why reactionary CONservative thinking persists in USA. Large scale excessive deaths among useful reactionary drones is, historically speaking, the only way to effect lasting social change including getting rid of pathological ideologies.

In the next part of this series, I will write in more detail about how demographic changes due to WW1 and WW2 started changing the worldview of people in those countries. More specifically, I will talk about the mindset of those who got killed, maimed or mentally scarred in those wars (and their aftermath) in comparison to those who survived. Will also cast some light on the severity of demographic profile shifts in main belligerent countries after both wars.

What do you think? Comments?