More Like “Not So Online”

Tim Weaver not only quit his blog but he deleted it entirely.

This saddens me as I now have less to write about.

I’m sure in Tim’s mind he might imagine that I would feel some victory, as if I should be happy that another liberal is no longer liberalizing on the internet, or that I may even feel as though I had some hand in its demise.  That I feel proud that I have outlasted him, in a sense.

None of those things are true.

This is not, however, the first time I have seen this happen.

My cousin the socialist serially posts inane comments and links on her Facebook feed about various nonsensical liberal/socialist/pinko ideologies.  One of her favorite talking points is about Israel, an issue I’m particularly close to since I work for a 55 year-old Uzbeki Jew who was born under the Iron Curtain, fled the communist regime to Israel in which he lived during the prime of Yassir Arafat’s influence, and then emigrated to the US about a decade ago.  Having actually lived in all three environments, he unequivocally advocates the United States.  Did I mention that he’s a Republican?

We go through a few bottles of scotch a year after work and he tells me stories about life in Uzbekistan, life in Israel, etc.  When I hear someone who I am also close to, namely my cousin (who has the personality of a pet rock), write pro-Palestine nonsense on her Facebook wall, I’m not just annoyed, I’m actively angered.  She has no idea what she’s talking about.

Of course, one could easily argue that neither do I; she reads pro-Palestine crap on the internet, i.e., a second-hand source, and I hear about how last month my boss’s brother, who still lives in Israel, watched a Hamas rocket blow part of the roof off his next door neighbor’s house, another second-hand source.  If she doesn’t know what she’s talking about then I suppose I don’t either because we simply see different sides of the coin.

However her pro-Palestine stance is only one of a myriad of ridiculous world views that she announces via social networking.  A while back, I started countering her arguments in comments on her Facebook wall.

After about a month, she responded to one of my comments along the lines of, “we need to stop doing this.  We clearly don’t see eye to eye and this is not productive.”  Translation: “stop writing comments in contradiction to the agenda I’m propogating on my Facebook wall as it is diluting the message.” 

I countered by stating that it was productive.  Well, could have been.  I explained that I like to see what “the other side” says and thinks, because as I have said a number of times before, if you don’t ever bother to test your own theories by seriously considering the other side’s worldview, you can’t ever rest assured knowing that your’e right.  You’ll also be completely inept at explaining how or why you believe the things you believe and you’ll end up coming off like a propagandist, which is exactly how my cousin comes across, especially when she requests that the debate be closed.

If you know you’re right, why do you want to close the debate?  You are either a) incapable of proving the truth, b) don’t care enough to bother, c) presume that your audience will never listen to you no matter what you say, or d) at some level aware that your head is up your own ass but admitting it now would only make you look like more of an ass, especially in front of a peer group like on Facebook.

There’s an e), and that is unwilling to argue because it will only lead to open animosity between people who are bound by a higher calling to get along even when they have wildly disparate world views, such as between cousins.  It was because of this that I acquiesced and granted her wish.  Also, I already said all that I had to say.  When it got to the point that she was tired of trying to counter me (or embarrassed because she couldn’t), it means it had gone far enough.  She had to end the discussion, e.g., concede.  Maybe she just figured I wouldn’t listen.

I have been guilty of advocating the futility of arguing with liberals.  In fact I am guilty every time I post to a blog called An Excercise in Futility.  But usually when I find that a particular argument is not working and I’m not getting through, rather than give up I just try a different line of reasoning.  I know I’m right.  I just need to expose the truth in a light that can be seen by those in the darkness of delusion. 

I have also been guilty of declaring that I won’t talk about politics anymore, but I lied.  It’s like trying to boycott bowel movements.

I haven’t given up either, because in both cases, even if I fail to change a single mind on any of the topics that I write about, it wasn’t for lack of trying.  Or caring.  Or a subconscious knowledge that I am preaching false prophecy on the internet.  (I’m not).

I suspect Tim will create , or has already created, another liberal blog under a pseudonym.  This time, like a true liberal, he’ll probably be more careful about where he comments so that he doesn’t run the risk of inviting a dialogue between people who disagree with him.  After all, for a liberal, there’s nothing worse than open conversation about their ideas with a conservative who doesn’t agree.  I find nine times out of ten the conversation ends with “let’s agree to disagree”, uttered by them.

No, let’s not agree to disagree.  For the record, simply because Tim’s blog is no longer on the internet, I still disagree with almost everything he said on it.  You can’t win an argument by withdrawing from it.  Let that be a lesson to us all.

Rest in peace, Not So Subtle.  You will be missed.

P.S.: thanks to Tim deleting his blog, all of the links to his works of inanity in my own prior entries will no longer function.  Next time I’ll be sure to quote inline.

How to Destroy a Liberal’s Worldview

In debate, I find the best tactic is always to ask questions.  The reason is remarkably simple.

Suppose Tim and I are having a debate.  Tim already strongly dislikes me for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that in his mind he has categorized me as an evil conservative who stands in the way of his grand vision of society with my backwards, brainwashed ideas dicated to me by that religion that I don’t actually have.

It’s easy for that dislike to spill over into abject distrust.  When I speak truth to him, he hears lies.

But the nice thing about the truth is that it’s true.  I find that it’s very easy to distrust someone who you don’t respect and assume they’re lying.  I find that it’s easier to hear a lie than to tell one.

That’s why the best remedy for a pigheaded progressive liberal idiot-type is to ask them questions which they can’t slither out of with party line lies they would rotely recite to escape giving an honest, well-thought answer.  You see, if you ask a question that the recipient has heard before, they’ll just parrot how they’ve heard others like them answer.  If you ask a liberal about abortion, for example, you’ll get the liberal talking points.  They’re just repeating what others say about it.  You haven’t engaged their anti-lie mechanism because they aren’t telling their own lies, they’re just telling someone else’s.  The goal is to elicit the emotional response associated with telling a lie.  Since most people who would even be interested in this type of conversation don’t want to be liars – particularly to themselves – if you make them feel their lies, they might be more receptive to altering their worldview, which is of course our end-goal.

I’ve broken it down into convenient categories on all of the major liberal talking points.  Try them on your liberal friends!

Abortion

In response to “an embryo isn’t a life”, counter by asking them: “Would you eat a human embryo?”

In response to “it’s my body, it’s my choice”, counter with: “Did you become impregnated without the assistance of human sperm?”  Follow up with, “Then isn’t the baby only half yours?  You do believe in democracy, right?”

In response to “the mother can’t afford to take care of ..” or any quality-of-life-for-mother-or-infant line of argument, ask: “So, in your world view, if a person can’t be fed, they should be actively killed to eliminate the risk of death by starvation?”

In response to “what about rape” question, ask: “Is your father a rapist?”  (the answer will be no).  Follow up with: “if he were, would I be allowed to shoot you dead right here, right now?”

Vegetarianism:

For health-excuse vegetarians, ask some of these:

“Did you know that A. Afaraensis, H. Habilis, H.Erectus and most likely even archaic H. Sapiens’ diets subsisted very largely on bone marrow, scavenged from the remains of predator kills?”  (lots of evidence in the fossil record of bones smashed with human tools).  If questioned about the relevance, answer: “Well, I’m just sayin’, if our ancestors hadn’t eaten meat, our brains would not have evolved to the point where we could even have this conversation.  I feel sorry for your children.”

Speaking of children, a fun one is: “Are you aware that it is illegal in most states to raise a child under the age of 3 as a vegan, even if you include breast milk?  Could you explain that law to me?”

For the moral vegetarians, ask some of these:

“Why is animal life more valuable than plant life?” (the answer will involve some kind of bullshit about brains and feelings).  Follow up with: “If I anesthesized a cow, or killed it in a way in which it did not suffer, wouldn’t it be equivalent to harvesting a blade of wheat?”

“Were you a cow in your last life?”  (no or maybe).  “Then how do you know that they suffer on factory farms?”  (they look sad) – “Can you send me a copy of the research you read that proves the animals we eat make facial expressions and the meaning of each?” (or a restatement of what happens on factory farms, stuff they got from a PETA video) “Would you say that you’re just projecting on the animals?  Like, because you wouldn’t want to live as livestock on a factory farm, you’re assuming they don’t either?”

There’s the age-old, “If you were stranded on a raft at sea and all you had to eat was Spam, would you die of starvation?”  (the answer is of course no, with a “but that’s different”).  Follow with, “So your morals fade away when you face death.  Isn’t eating a way to prevent death?  Isn’t the only variable here how impending death is and how available vegetables are?  In other words, would you say that your morals are only possible because of modern luxuries?”  Follow with, “Since we only started farming about 8,000 years ago and humans have been around a lot longer than that, would it be fair to say that your moral luxury is possible only because we ate meat, not in spite of it?”

For environmental nonsense:

Use this after you’ve closed the “feelings” door: “Doesn’t farming in general wreak collateral damage?  Sure, a lot of amazon rainforest is being chopped down for cow pastures, but how many trees have been chopped down to clear fields?  How many field mice have been caught in combines?”

Global Warming

“What do plants breathe?”  (if they’re not retarded, CO2).  “Wouldn’t an increase in CO2 cause more plant growth, thereby creating a greener earth?”  (Only until it burns up from the greenhouse effect).  “How hot would it have to get for rainforests to die?” (no answer).  “Wouldn’t we see a rapid evolution of heat tolerant plant growth, when all the other plants die out?”  (no).  “Why not?” (because evolution takes a long time).  “Can I borrow your crystal ball?  I want to buy stocks.”

“If the earth increases by an average temperature of 5 degrees, wouldn’t that make more of the earth habitable because Canada and Siberia wouldn’t be so cold?”  (no, because the oceans would rise).  “How much would the oceans have to rise to make us lose enough continental space to account for the combination of Siberia and Canada?”  (No answer, because they don’t know.  Your goal here is just to point out how little they know about their eco religion).

This is my favorite.  “What percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere is currently carbon dioxide?”  (even smart people who detect your trap will guess something like 5%.  The real answer is 0.0383%, also known as less than 1 tenth of 1 percent). 

“How much does the atomsphere weigh?”  (the answer is 5 quadrillion tons, aka 5,000,000,000,000,000 – that’s 15 zeroes). 

“If the humans pump 1 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, how many years will it take to increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.038% to 0.04%?  (The answer is 25,000).

“Could you rank the following sources of greenhouse gas by order of most to least: oceans, forests, decomposing plants, all human activity combined?  Could you assign a weight to each?”  (they won’t be able to, but it might inspire them to learn about the carbon cycle.)

“Have you seen the inconvenient truth graph about temperature and CO2 charts?”  (yes).  “Did you know that the earth’s oceans are accountable for the vast majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide?”  (they’ll say yes, but are lying).  “Did you know that as the globe temperature increases, the ocean’s temperatures increase?”  (yes, duh).  “Did you know that as the ocean gets warmer, it loses its ability to store CO2 in solution, so it gets released into the atmosphere?”  (yes, again lying).  “Did you know that it takes almost 1,000 years for global temperatures to be reflected in the oceans, because the oceans are such a gigantic heat sink?”   “Did you know that Al Gore’s graph is on such a large scale that it doesn’t really show the fact that the CO2 levels rise about 1,000 years after the earth warms?”  “What do you suppose the cause-effect relatonship would be, given all those facts?”

I’m wearing myself out.  Stay tuned for part 2.

 

 

It’s Not Marriage, It’s the Woman

Despite the fact that I am a serial monogamist – or was (I’m married now) – I read PUA blogs.  Not so much because I care about ways to “open sets” at bars and clubs or learn how to seduce women, but because the voices of the PUA’s are the voices of men who represent a pro-male counterculture that shits all over feminist theory without sounding like whining bitches.  These guys are all the proof you need that feminism is bullshit.

I never really thought about it much when I was younger – when things like seducing as many girls as possible was important to me – but after studying the academics of the alpha male, I’ve come to realize that virtually all of the responses to female behavior that the PUA community would call “alpha” are responses that have always come naturally to me.

Today I’d like to comment on a recent reader submission to my favorite PUA author, Roissy, about marriage, “the ultimate shit test.”  In synopsis, the reader caved in to matriarchy and got pressured into the type of marriage depicted on Married with Children.

As a natural alpha who is recently married, I’d like to describe my experience with marital bliss.

First and foremost, as the reader notes, one of the biggest mistakes he made was letting his wife demand marriage and acquiescing.  I liken this kind of scenario to driving a nail and landing a bad swing.  The nail is crooked.  Anyone who has driven a lot of nails can tell you that driving a nail in that’s bent or crooked is possible, but extremely difficult – much better to yank it out, toss it aside, and start with a fresh nail.

I would never have married my wife on any terms other than my own.  From a legal perspective, the wife has all the cards.  Marriage is an incredible risk for a man, and in many ways a great sacrifice; any woman who would suggest otherwise is oblivious to or actively denies male nature, or somehow has it in their mind that their husband is different.  He isn’t.

Don’t get me wrong.  I did get married because I wanted to get married, and any sacrifice I made was only in exchange for the other, less glamorous but ultimately more fulfilling things in life.  But I wasn’t about to get strong-armed into something I didn’t want by external pressures.  This is hard for a lot of men because a lot of men are followers.

You see, one of the traits that I have always had that is at odds with most of my male peers is a natural aversion to joining anything.  I’m the last person in the world who would join a fraternity.  I don’t want to be part of a group.  I want to be in charge of it.  A corrolary of this attitude is that when someone tells me what I should do, I ignore them.  The only people whose advice I take seriously on important life decisions are other people like me – namely, demonstrable, proven alphas.  I have never taken advice from someone who is not significantly older than I am.  To be fair, I also take my mother’s advice.  She’s my mother, after all.  Some things can’t be changed, nor should be.

If my future wife had ever pressured me, I would have dumped her.  Now, since I didn’t want to find myself in that position, I made sure to tell her a story about the girl I dated before her, who was trying to get me to go to some stupid party for one of her fat ugly friends in DC.  I had no desire to mingle with a bunch of troglodytes so I was putting up a tactful resistance, namely, “hell no.”  This girl who I had been seeing a few times a week for about four months actually thought that a good leverage tool would be to ask me if I ever saw the two of us getting married – presumably in the hopes that I would say yes which could open up an entire line of argument like, “well if we get married we will need to see each others’ friends…” and pressure me with the husband-duty angle, long before we had ever even brooched the subject of marriage.  I looked her straight in the face and said, “No.”

Since not only did I crush her dreams, in one fel swoop I had shut the door on the one avenue she had of convincing me to go to this stupid party, she went home crying and told her friend that she was sick and couldn’t make it to the party.  I waited for her to call me.

In her case, it was as it should have been because she had started the post-marriage weight gain slide from solid 7 to warpig despite the fact that we were not married.  In the course of a few months she gained about 25 pounds and it got to the point where I could not be seen in public with her.

But I digress.  I told my future wife this story relatively early in our relationship for a couple of reasons.  First, I wanted to ensure that a repeat of this event wouldn’t happen.  I wanted her to understand how I would respond to this kind of scenario.  And I wanted to make it clear that if I ever thought that marriage would be in our horizon I would tell her.  On the flip side, I indicated that I thought dating the same girl for an extended period of time when I had no intentions of marrying her was not something I was interested in doing, and it’s true.  If I weren’t looking for a future bride, I would have fucked a different girl every month like any other alpha PUA would do.

The poor sap who found himself in a disasterous marriage until he started acting like an alpha male toward his wife happens to a great number of men in the past two generations because my parents, the boomers, let feminism happen, and that is telling of their attitudes in general.  I strongly believe the divorce rates in our parents’ generation are a direct result of men sacrificing their balls on the altar of openness and understanding and essentially allowing their girls to dictate to them how they think they want to be treated, thereby sculpting an entire society of men afraid to act like men.  We, the children, have pretty shitty role models.  A lot of divorced men tell their sons not to get married.

Marriage is not a hard trick to pull off as long as wife is a woman and husband is a man.  While I have only been a legally married for a couple of months now, she and I have more or less lived like a married couple for more close to two years, and my experience is nothing like the T.A., the author of the submission.  My wife does cook for me.  My wife wants sex more often than I do.  My wife does not act like a cold heartless bitch.  There are two reasons for this: first, I knew what to look for in a woman who was wife material.  For every sweet, sexy, feminine girl like my wife in the 20-30 age range, there are 5 cold, career-driven psuedo-man unmarriagable bitches out there.  Some of the PUA blogs talk about how to tackle these women but most of them just lament about how much American women suck and flee to 3rd world countries where the culture hasn’t been corrupted by the plague of feminism (except in bars with cover charges, apparently).

In my experience, my natural alpha persona causes girls like this to reflexively throw shit tests at me.  The PUA blogs gave me a word for this: shit testing.  Anyway, if I wanted to be a student of “game” I would focus on how to respond to these shit tests and get past the bitch barrier and into the panties.  It might be fun to sport bang one of these girls whose cores I loathe just so I could roll off them and then start talking Republican politics at them and ask if they’ve ever watched an abortion on an ultrasound machine.  But I was never really interested in that because it got boring by the time I was 20, mostly because it was just too easy.  By the time I was 23, the minute I got shit tested by a woman I just issued a stock look of repulsion – one of my key talents, so I’m told – and walked away.

Pressure to marriage is dubbed by the reader as the ultimate shit test that you must pass.

I would give a different piece of advice: don’t date women who shit test you.

I’m serious.  Obviously there isn’t a woman alive who doesn’t shit test every man she’s with to some degree, but like all things, a shit test is a matter of severity, a truth which can’t be denied in the presence of a so-called queen of shit tests.  But I can’t remember a time when I had to consciously game my wife to slither out of some bullshit emotional trap she laid for me or fast talk my way past an officer of the court.  If a woman shit tests you at introduction or on date one, she’s going to shit test you for your entire life.  In even a small moment of weakness she’ll pounce.

The issue is that women who are prone to this kind of behavior have some bizarre notion that a relationship involves a power struggle.  This is a common theme in Roissy’s writings because most Western women have been innundated their entire lives with talk about “women’s rights” and “equality” as if gender relations can and must necessarily be reduced to stoichiometry, and they extend this perverted thinking to a microcosmic scale of their relationships with their husbands.  A man must prove his worth to his wife constantly; if he fails to do so, then somehow, by default, the woman gains some kind of upperhand in her mind, which leads to the kind of experience the reader had: infrequent, obligatory sex when she wants it only exacerbated by an increase, rather than an equilibrium-preserving decrease of demands on him under the guilt-ridden guise of husbandly obligations.  Only fools let their wives get away with this.

But then again, only fools marry women for which any of the above is true.  I’d be lying if I said there isn’t a certain level of expectation that she and I have for how we treat each other, but we don’t barter the machinations of life like who takes the trash out or how much money we bring home from our jobs against affections or sex because our relationship is not a market economy.

The reason it isn’t is because we let our natural, human autopilot guide our behaviors through nothing other than swimming with the currents of our gender mechanics instead of against them.  I act like a man and she acts like a woman, and we don’t question what that entails.  Nothing is more disasterous than a relationship between two people who think androgyny in both directions will lead to happiness.  If the woman is trying to be more like a man and the man is trying to be more like a woman, you get two interchangeable parts that aren’t balanced by natural forces and instead all kinds of artificial inventions – like the imaginary power balance imposed by bitchy wives with husbands who won’t stand up for themselves – are created to fill the void.

So the reader seems to indicate that he was able to turn his life and his marriage around merely by employing “game” on his own wife.  It isn’t about game, because presumably he isn’t smooth talking his way down her pants (or is he?).  It’s about using the teachings of how to pick up women to instead simply act more like a man instead of a beta chump who let his wife drag him by the balls toward a gender centerline that Sex and the City tells her she should also sit on to find True Happiness.  Acting like a man and “game” are coincidentally exactly the same thing.  I am not tall.  I have been about 20 pounds above the median my entire life.  I do have particularly masculine facial features which helps but I am not dashingly attractive.  But I have never had a problem attracting women significantly more attractive than myself and it’s for no other reason than the fact that I am a natural alpha and I exude testosterone through my pores.  Even girls who, on an intellectual level disagree with every single thing I have said about the world on this blog, have begged me to bone them.  Before my current wife, my previous two girlfriends were flaming, flaming liberals.  One of them was in the Peace Corps, for Christ’s sake.

Had my wife not detected the hint that I was giving her when I told her the story of marriage-discussions-past, my response to her would have been different: “When we are ready to have that discussion I’ll bring it up.”  As it turns out, when we were ready to have that discussion I brought it up, in the form of a marriage proposal.  Keep the ball in your court.

In that vein, I would recommend this: don’t let your future wife shit test you.  If anyone is going to be doing the shit testing, it is going to be you.  You’re the man; you’re in the driver’s seat.  The minute that fails to be true, your relationship – whether it’s dating or marriage – is over.  You won’t be happy and neither will she.

When we exchanged vows, I vowed to “love, honor, and protect” my wife.  She vowed to “love, honor, and obey” me.  This was her idea, not mine.

You want to talk about shit tests?  That’s the shit test you put on her plate.  My advice: if you even suspect that your girl would not make those vows at your behest, don’t marry her.  If, on the other hand, she volunteers, you’ll be happy for the rest of your life.

One Way Garage

The parking garage at my office is a one way garage.  Traffic flows clockwise.  Unless two hummers were involved, the lanes are wide enough to fit two cars going two ways, although only barely, and it depends on how the rows are parked.   The garage is mostly empty most of the time as the building is not 100% leased.  I estimate that a full circuit around one level of the garage would take about 20 seconds going at 15 miles per hour.

Upon reaching the bottom level, if you were to hang a left – e.g., go the wrong way – you would be in the lane of spots closest to the exit of the garage (and therefore the office building itself), thereby saving yourself an extra 10 yards of walking twice a day.  Despite its small size, and perhaps because of its low density, I would estimate that the majority of monthly passholders flagrantly ignore the one-way signs and drive counter clockwise.

Last week, a head-on collision occured around a corner.  Someone in a BMW was going the wrong way in the garage at an estimated 25 miles per hour, which doesn’t sound like a lot but in a small parking garage it’s break-neck.  The other car, an early 90′s Civic hatchback, was totalled.  Ambulances were called, but fortunately nobody was injured.

Guess which driver is entirely at fault in this equation?  Guess who got the ticket (and from what I understand, 4 points)?  Guess whose insurance is paying the entire cost and will likely involve a hefty premium hike?

I’ll give you a hint.  It wasn’t the guy who was obyeying the one-way traffic sign.

I’m telling you this story because I want to illustrate a point here.  Following the garage convention of clockwise – and keeping it one way, as the signs directed – reduce the chances of an accident like the one that occurred last week to almost zero.  Ignoring the signs increase the risk of an accident like this by several orders of magnitude.  The exchange is risking yourself and another driver just so you can get the parking spots closest to the doors without having to spend an extra 10 seconds or less on your ass in your car driving around the garage.

So why do people do it?  Why do they take the risk?  These are white collar college-educated professionals.  The majority of the cars in this garage are luxury cars of some kind.  One of the reserved spots (also very close to the door) is routinely occupied by an Aston Martin.  If any segment of society should be able to weigh risk vs. reward, it’s this one.  By the way, the Aston Martin owner is a big shot in a wealth management company on the third floor.  He also disobeys the one way signs.

They take the risk to spare their own selves a tiny fraction of their daily time.  Remember, these people are on their way into work.  If there’s ever a time to dawdle, you would think entering the office would be one o those times.  I’m slightly more sympathetic to people peeling out of the garage at high speed when it’s the end of the day.  But only slightly.

This is the kind of behavior that a lot of people might excuse on the grounds that the risks, even when going the wrong way, are statistically insignificant.  Others might consider this insignifcant.  Others might champion it as anti-establishment (and therefore, in their minds, a good thing).  Others might condemn it but fail to recognize it as pattern behavior.

But it is pattern behavior.  I’m going to ask yourself to imagine what other traits the kind of person who would risk an accident, which costs thousands of dollars, many, many hours, and possibly bodily harm to themselves and others just to save themselves fifteen seconds each day might have.  Is this person likely to arrive at a party early or late?  Is this person likely to eat the food at a potluck but not bring any himself?  Is this person likely to consider his own interests above everyone else’s – especially when everyone else is amalgamated into some kind of faceless mass named “society”?  The answers are probably all yes.

If only one or two people ignored the rules and did what they wanted, this wouldn’t be remotely interesting.  But the majority of people in this office building ignore the one-way signs.  Are they all assholes?  No.  A lot of the people with whom I am friendly at work are also guilty of this crime.  Is it easy to forgive them at a personal level?  I guess.  I’m certainly not going to cold shoulder them because they break the parking garage rules.

However, I will say this.  Even though this may seem trivial and inconsequential, I believe the fact that the majority of people will put everyone else’s safety in jeopardy for even minute rewards like a slightly shorter walk to their cars twice a day indicates to me that the majority of people, despite what they say, are patently self-interested.

Why, then, would I expect any kind of collectivism to be in my own interests?  Why, then, would I expect anyone else to look out for me, when they aren’t even willing to protect me from driving into them head-on by doing so little as driving an extra loop around a very small building?  People, in general, are not interested in other people’s safety or wellness.  They are interested in their own.  That is why I believe 100% of the people who are interested in socialized medicine have a self-interested motive in mind.  That is why I believe the very concept of socialized medicine is a disingenous fraud.  But it’s an ingenius one.

Nobody wants to admit that they are self-interested.  That reflex, by the way, is itself self-interested.  I’ll illustrate with a simple example:

Alice is self-interested.  Bob is self-interested.  Clyde tells Alice that he cares about her well-being.  Clyde tells Bob that he doesn’t give a shit whether Bob lives or dies.  Alice, who is self-interested, likes Clyde because Clyde is looking out for her, and that is good for her.  Bob, who is self-interested, dislikes Clyde.  Bob’s own well-being is the most important thing to him, so anyone who does not see it that way is not his friend.

If a person were truly magnanimous, he wouldn’t be affected at all by people who aren’t, because he wouldn’t care about himself, he would only care about other people.  If Evan is magnanimous and Tim is self-interested, Evan doesn’t hate Tim for being selfish because Evan cares more about Tim’s well-being than his own, so he agrees with Tim that Tim’s well-being is more important than Evan’s.

See how that works?

So, the most self-interested people are the most likely to claim that they are not self-interested because they want other people to like them, as a means to further their own self-interests.

Socialized medicine is a patent expression of self-interested greed.  “I want health care for everyone.”  Of course, because you’re magnanimous, right?  You want it for everyone because everyone includes you, but if you said “I want healthcare for me (but I don’t want to pay for it)”, you’d be chalked up as greedy.

One of the fun questions I like to poke at pro-socialized medicine people is to ask them if they would be in favor of paying taxes to fund socialized medicine that they themselves, nor anyone they ever personally met, would be a recipient of those services.

Everybody says “yes.”  Everybody is lying.

Posing Nude is Pro-Feminist?

Yeah right.

I wonder if Gloria Steinem dies a little inside when she reads a fellow womyn young enough to be her daugher spout words like this:

I think [feminists] suffer from lack of knowledge and tunnel vision. How many of those self-important, so-called ‘feminists’ have been on the set when a celebrity shot a Playboy spread? There you go. What is feminist about discriminating a photo shoot just because it involves female (partial) nudity that happens to give men pleasure? Pathetic.

Playboy doesn’t happen to give men pleasure.  Playboy exists for no other reason than to give men pleasure (in exchange for money).  Of all things, ask what it is in and of itself.  What is its nature?  This tart is acting as if the photo shoot were arranged so a woman could express her “power” or “creativity” or “self”.  No, bitch.  The photo shoot was arranged so your naked body could give male readers boners.  That’s why the feminists hate porn in all its forms.  It is implicitly servile toward men.  I’m not going to make Gloria Steinem’s arguments for her; they’re out there for you to find if you care.  I don’t disagree with Gloria Steinem says about pornography on an intellectual level.  Most of what she says is true. 

The difference is merely that she views an industry in which women are exploited for female pleasure (porn) as a bad thing, whereas I view it as some small compensation for every man who has ever devoted his life to assisting a woman in raising a child.  The pleasure derived from pornography probably doesn’t hold a candle to the pleasure derived from motherhood.  Since nobody is truly both male and female, no one will ever know because a direct comparison from the point of view of a single individual is impossible.

Let’s move on.

There are several great reasons why female celebs line up to shoot Playboy: finally a woman gets paid more than a man for comparable work…

There is no comparable work.  Women won’t gamble pretty much everything they have just to catch a glimpse of the nude male form whereas men will.  There is a gigantic market of men willing to pay girls to strip.  The market of women willing to pay men to strip is diminutive by comparison.  Getting nude in front of the camera is one small step away from prostitution.  Female whores probably don’t get paid significantly more than male whores simply because of basic supply and demand dynamics but there are probably a thousand female whores for every male whore (children excluded).

…she gets to set the rules…

“No bush shots” is setting the rules, huh?  I’m glad she can derive such a power trip from such a petty indulgence.  I’m pretty sure the contractual agreement for the magazine to publish nude shots of her sets the rules, and that contractual agreement is negotiated in advance probably with lawyers present.  If Playboy didn’t like the rules, they wouldn’t pay her.

… as many key positions at Playboy are in fact held by women!

Many police offers in the Nazi ghettos were also Jews.

Krupa adds. “She brings in her creative ideas, gets involved in the photo selection and ends up with something she co-created through and through.

Isn’t it amazing how the kind of parlance that idiot liberals have woven into the vernacular can turn posing naked for the world to see into an art form?  Her creative ideas do what, exactly?  Make cock stiffer faster?  If she turns at a 30 degree angle her tits look better?  Please.  I highly doubt she was involved in the air brushing.  Playboy has removed entire anatomical components from Pamela Anderson before to sanitize the shot (apparently flappy labia minora is a turn off for Playboy readers).  They aren’t going to refrain from doing the same with this girl because she’s an assertive artiste.

Our society is used to judging content by its package and label. The word ‘Playboy’ alone doesn’t exactly give most women a warm, fuzzy feeling, yet many of the Playboy photos end up in the most praised photo and art magazines and in critically acclaimed photo exhibitions…

Passing a referendum on society is the perfect strawman.  The problem isn’t with her, the nude model.  It’s instead with society, which looks down upon nude models.  Rather than not be a nude model to avoid the negative connotations associated with being a nude model, it’s much easier to change the worldview of a billion other people.

In general, if someone resorts to passing judgment on “society” when attempting to excuse a behavior they feel is legitimate, chances are their actual arguments don’t hold a lot of water.  It’s easy to enumerate the social ills that result from an overexposure to the naked female form.  Take “ills” with a grain of salt.  We are entering a golden age of masculinism thanks to the abundance of pornography available to every man.  A girl’s primary bargaining tool is her body.  In a world where that body is a closely guarded secret and the likelihood is remote of a man even seeing much less touching a naked female outside of established social rules designed to serve a woman’s needs (e.g., marriage), a man would be willing to sacrifice a great deal of his freedom in exchange for that.  This is the basis of the virtue of chastity.

There are two extremes.  One is Middle Eastern cutlure in which men are so afraid of their own lust that they resort to covering women up with large amorphous ghost sheets in public so they are not sexually appealing and make it a crime punishable by death to be in the company of a man who is not her husband or a blood relative.  Another is a society in which women are so freely available that the very concept of a monogamous relationship would be foreign.  America is getting there.  But for Krupa, imagery of naked women is not ubiquitous enough.  Society must not demonize women for taking off their clothes on camera.  Soon it won’t be “on camera” but instead “in public.”  A woman just like Krupa will find a soapbox and talk about how being free to take her clothes off in public and let the whole world admire her body was “empowering” and a bold statement of confidence and style.

Krupa said. “As for movies, over the years violence has become more graphic and bodies more naked even in Academy Award winning films. The excuse that nudity and even full blown sex-scenes are ’artistically required’ is laughable, as that would imply that all movies from the old days (that didn’t contain love scenes) were less artistic. So it simply comes down to ‘sex sells.’ Same goes for fashion magazines. You see A-list celebs and models already going topless in European fashion mags like Vogue.

Hold up, lady.  There’s a big difference between a sex scene in a movie in which the story teller is attempting to share the fact that two characters are having sex with the audience and showing nudity exactly for nudity’s sake.  The purpose of a sex scene is to convey a plot element.  The purpse of posing in Playboy is to allow people to gaze at your naked body.  Most film sex scenes do not show any genitalia in an effort to keep a PG-13 or R rating.  TNA is not a requirement for this type of acting.

No argument that movies in which a popular actress bares part of her body generally have higher box office potential because they lure a certain element (e.g., men) to the theatres who don’t give a damn about the plot and are just waiting for the tit scene.  Krupa is criticizing this element indirectly as part of her two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.  “Movie actresses show their boobs on screen all the time so it’s fine if I do too.”  In contrast to all her previous line of argument, she’s connotating that “sex sells” is a bad thing in films, but uses sex in films as a justification for why sex for sex’s sake, like a men’s magazine, is perfectly acceptable.  It’s amazing how people can get away with arguments like this.  The vast majority of people who read what this woman says will not be able to deconstruct these wild flaws in her thinking.  That’s what this blog is for.

When an A-list celeb or model is going topless in a fashion magazine, it means their downward spiral has begun and they are desperate to keep the spotlight on themselves.  The first warning sign that a celebrity is about to fade into the woodwork is some kind of nude spread in a magazine.  These shoots are the death throes of the entertainment starlet.

Every country has its own culture and sensitivities. It is obvious the Europeans are less sensitive to nudity in the media but more sensitive to violence instead, and in America it appears to be the other way around,” she added.

Referendum on society #2.  This time she’s appealing to the time-honored tradition of everything on “the continent” automatically reigning culturally supreme over we Philistine colonists.

I’ve never heard of children being psychologically scarred by looking at a naked body, but we all know that watching violence has a desensitizing impact on children. Nudity is natural, after all.

Tell that to the juries of the world which routinely convict people (men) of exposing themselves to children and imposing custodial sentences thereto.  There’s a big, big difference between an asexual environment such as a nude beach and an explicitly sexual environment like a strip club.  We could argue back and forth about which bill Playboy magazine fits but I think we all know what the answer is despite what the cheerleaders might say.

Nudity is in fact not natural for human beings, despite what Ms. Krupa might like to believe.  Humans have a natural instict to cover their genitals.  While certainly indigenous tribes who live in very hot climates parade around mostly naked, there are no records of any human culture that did not wear some form of clothing.  A topless tribal lady in a grass skirt is only a few square inches of fabric shy of acceptable pageant wear in the United States.  If a bikini is clothing, so is a hula thong.

At last, the coup de grace:

But back to Miss Krupa’s sexy shoot, shot in London by famed photographer Rankin. It turns out that Hef didn’t initially like the modern, artistic style of the pics and wanted a re-shoot.

So much for art.  Hef wanted something sexy, not something you’d hang on the wall in the Met.  Hugh Hefner is a business man and sex sells.

I declined to shoot with anyone else. Sure, an experiment always comes with a risk for a magazine. That’s why I am so glad that in the end Hef had faith in my shoot and now seems to be all excited about it,” she added.

Translation: “I accepted less money.”

Evan Maxim #2: Good ideas don’t need to be defended.

Based on how much justification Ms. Krupa feels compelled to give for shooting for Playboy, I’d say it was probably a bad idea.  If an idea is a good one, it justifies itself.

You’re not a Yankees Fan, STFU

Being from New Jersey originally a lot of my old friends are sports team orphans and naturally gravitate toward New York’s teat for all team loyalty nutriments.

Unfortunately the Yankees keep winning pennants.  This means that every time they’re in the series, all of these so-called closet baseball fans come out barking for the Yankees as if they give a shit.

They don’t.

Not only do these people not talk about a single baseball game prior to the series, they could’t name a single player on the Yankees roster.  I’m fairly certain that in addition to not watching or caring about baseball at any other period of the year, a lot of these people do not understand the rules of baseball.  One time while we were still in high school, a girl who I knew didn’t give a crap about sports, much less about baseball, came to school with a Yankees emblem painted on her cheek.  I asked her what RBI stood for and she didn’t know.  This same girl currently has “LETS GO YANKEES!!!111″ littering every electronic broadcast tool about herself she has available, such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter.

What is it about the Yankees and the World Series that inspires people to pretend to give a crap?  Baseball as an industry relies entirely on this irrational hype.  People don’t go to baseball games to watch baseball, they do it to sit around in jerseys on uncomfortable benches with masses of annoying people who are all pretending to be more invested in a game they could not care less about than everyone else around them in a vain attempt to feel like authentic baseball fans, as if the stadium experience is diminished if you go there as exactly the kind of person I’m describing here.  The 8th circle of hell is reserved for disingenous baseball fans, or so we’d all have each other believe.

No, it’s about spending $8 for a crappy light beer and $12 for a hot dog and having pictures of yourself enjoying “America’s Past Time” on your Facebook wall.

But if you’re not attending any series games – which you aren’t – why must you insist on pretending that you have a team affiliation?  Philadelphia is geographically closer to where we grew up than New York.  Why are you rooting for New York?  Because they win games with their wallet and you too want to be a winner?  If by declaring your team loyalty in a public forum, you are somehow entitled to some small credit for their achievement?  Please.

My best friend from high school doesn’t give a crap about baseball and yet even she too has fallen victim to this go Yankees crap.

Seriously people, STFU.  If you can’t tell me what the Yankees’ season record is, plus or minus even a liberally wide margin of 10%, without looking it up on the internet, you’re not a Yankees fan, so please do the internet a favor and shut the hell up.  I’m tired of blocking you from my live feed.

Also, screw baseball.  What a boring, stupid sport.  I’d rather watch cats eat their own shit than watch a baseball game.