Category Archives: society

Kids and the dangers of the Internet

Posted on by
Reply

I get annoyed when school teachers, who are generally among the more clueless people out there, give children wise advice about the dangers of the Internet, basically “don’t go there, because bad people with white vans offering free candy, and hackers and stuff”.

You know what’s the worst thing that can happen to your kids online? Other kids. And not just any kids, but the kids from their school.

You know what the greatest danger is? Oh, it must be the bullying and shit, right? Wrong. It’s spending 10 hours every day on gossip and talks so stupid I’m simply unable to fabricate examples of, because my brain refuses to go there. Yes, there really are kids who spend most of their awake time on Snapchat and Facebook, exchanging trivial messages with other kids, probably because they are afraid of being out of the loop, which usually means being the one who’s picked at.

Now imagine what the kid’s mind will look like if all he or she is doing is exchanging idiotic messages with other kids who don’t really know shit about anything? And that’s at the time when they should be reading books, or listening to adults who would teach them things. The most dangerous thing about socializing with other kids is that the options available are “get along with everyone, especially the leading kid in the group, or be singled out for attack”. That’s how you get street gangs later. In my time (because I’m fucking old) it used to be called “bad company”, because it was recognized that it rubs off on you and you get pulled in to whatever your peers are doing, and it’s usually not training for the math competition.

If kids managed to spend 10 hours a day reading books and practicing math and coding, they’d get to be super smart. But if they spend 10 hours a day hanging out with other kids (online or IRL), they will get to be stupid and evil, because that’s what it amounts to: they try to find each other’s weakness so that they can bully and attack others, which gives them the sense of empowerment, and they try to get other kids to like them, because it gives them the sense of worth. Another problem is that they attack anything that’s different from them in any ways, because different means their choices and qualities aren’t the only option, and there’s a vast fear of choice, because choice means you can choose wrong. So, they pretend there are no choices by choosing conformity. They choose to look the same, act the same, think the same and feel the same, and if some among them is smart or virtuous enough to understand that this is a very stupid form of self-deception, he or she is singled out for attack, mostly to scare others into even greater conformity.

Another thing that bothers me with the social media is that it’s a case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Essentially, if you hang out with other kids online, and you are all pathetic conformists, you get to like worthless shit and have your worthless shit liked, and you waste your time collecting likes and being the same as everybody else while you should be building up your personality and learning useful things. As you neglect your real life, you get increasingly less emotional reward points from your real life, because it’s increasingly fucked up and hopeless due to neglect, and you have no other choice but to keep investing in the creation of the fake online presence where you post yucky artificial shit that’s designed to be liked by worthless people such as yourself. And increasingly, the voices of reason that scream at you that the emperor is naked are dismissed as trolling and abuse, so that you can descend deeper into the Shelob’s lair. Stay assured, however, that if you stay the course, you will turn into nothing way before any actual monster puts you out of your misery.

 

Too stupid to function

Posted on by
30

Recently I watched something shocking:

This fact, that US military won’t recruit people with IQ 83 or under, is both shocking and intuitively clear to me, because I do understand that in the modern world, there’s a decreasing pool of opportunities for stupid people. In a world that is mostly high-tech and sophisticated, marginally retarded people just can’t find anything useful to do, and if they can’t find anything useful to do, it’s either attempt to create a world more to their image, so to speak, basically retarding the modern world by a few centuries, or separate the world into high-IQ one and low-IQ one, basically having a space-age star trek society and a medieval shithole next door, or extinction of low-IQ people because high-IQ people will need the resources and will be able to just take them, or, most likely, extinction of the high-IQ people because the low-IQ ones are more determined, they never have any self-doubt, they are completely certain of their course, God is always on their side, they reproduce at an exponential rate, and the West is unable to defend itself against this threat in any way, due to its current philosophical constraints.

In any case, take a look at this: https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

Guess why some countries are poor, and will always stay poor, without any chance of improvement.

Their average IQ is below the threshold of admittance for the US army, and if you’re too fucking dumb to be trained to be a soldier, well, no comment. Maybe they can find some niche in the sexual industry, to put it nicely. Sure, the average IQ doesn’t tell the whole story, Croatian average IQ is 90, which I have no difficulty believing because most people I meet here are stupid as rocks, but if you come to the university the average IQ would be around the MENSA admittance threshold, so you can obviously have a significant number of very smart people in a society in which majority is borderline retarded. However, having in mind that the average IQ in some societies is near or below completely unemployable, don’t get me started about unequal income levels and social differences. If someone with IQ 83 is below subsistence, and someone with IQ 150 is wealthy, that’s not an unexpected outcome in a society that uses computers, Internet, complex tools and international markets to function. The problem is, what will happen when a huge majority of people falls below a threshold of being able to find a normal job that pays well enough to make a living on the market? I’ll tell you what will happen. They will embrace socialism, because it will be the last straw. They can’t make it in capitalism, they’re too fucking stupid to program computers, make web apps or order cheaper things from Alibaba or Amazon. However, they can still vote, and this will be exploited by people whose IQ is much higher than 83, I guarantee you that, but they will manipulate the stupid disenfranchised masses into voting them into power.

There’s another problem, of course. Our civilization is increasingly demanding. It’s easy to dismiss the IQ 83 people, because I would expect that to be close to the higher-end of the Homo Erectus level of cognition. Heck, Bonobo chimps are quoted as having IQ of over 40 (yes, I know the IQ scale is normalized to 100 relative to a population, and not absolute, so read with this in mind). However, in a simple society such a person can function. He or she can pick berries or cocoa beans. In a modern society, the threshold of dropping out is higher. Projecting this trend into the future, it’s conceivable that at a certain point anyone below MENSA admittance threshold won’t be able to successfully function. Projecting it further, you get to the point where only a few thousand super-smart individuals in a few tech companies will be able to function at a level necessary to make good money, while the rest will be akin to chimps living in a world ruled by men. What happens when having a PhD and IQ of 148 isn’t enough to get a subsistence wage job, because there’s only a few jobs that aren’t automated, and they are basically for astronaut-level qualifications, with multiple science degrees and IQ of over 180? Sure, it’s easy to dismiss stupid people who favor socialism because they can’t make it on the market, but what happens when there’s 8 billion people and only 8000 are qualified to actually do anything worth paying them for?

I’ll tell you what happens. Civilizational collapse, and not in the hypothetical aforedescribed future, but fucking now. That’s the reason why everything is falling apart and socialism became popular. It’s because if you’re not a genius, you’re getting increasingly fucked, and even if you’re a genius your life is unbearably difficult, to the point where you don’t have a life beside work. The whole thing is a nightmare for almost everybody, which is why everybody is sending all those smiling selfies, posturing how wonderful their life is. It’s because their life sucks so much they are afraid all hell is going to break loose if anyone finds out, so they posture online and eat antidepressants like candy in private.

 

About hurricanes and global warming

Posted on by
1

Are the hurricanes caused by global warming? Julian Assange apparently thinks so.

Yes. The globe is warming during the summer, and in the beginning of autumn the oceans are cooling off in a chaotic thermodynamic process called hurricane. This removes the excess of heat accumulated into the oceans; the more heat, and the greater the thermal difference between oceans and atmosphere, the more violent the hurricane.

The funniest thing is, the CO2 model of anthropogenic global warming would actually require the hurricanes to be less violent, because less solar energy accumulated during the summer would be released into space due to the glasshouse effect; this energy would stay here, and cause milder winters, which would in turn cause less growth of the polar ice during the winter, and increased melting during the summer. This would quickly cause the polar caps to melt and the sea levels to rise. The violent hurricanes mean that the energy that would cause this was safely released into space.

Also, the fact that a hurricane is more devastating doesn’t make it stronger. What makes it devastating is when it hits areas with expensive real estate and wealthy people. When it pulverizes Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti or Philippines, and a huge number of poor people lose their cheap homes, everybody shrugs. When it hits St. Bart’s where rich people have their fancy vacations, it’s suddenly the most devastating tragedy ever. The hurricanes didn’t become better or worse – they simply wreck things in their path, and if you’re in their path, you’re fucked. They aren’t the creatures of anthropogenic global warming, they are the creatures of seasonal global cooling. The most devastating one in US history happened 1900 in Galveston. It killed between 6000 and 12000 people, not because it was that huge (it was category 4), but because it hit a densely populated area just right, creating a storm surge of 4.6m. Essentially, it’s the flooding that’s the problem, and when it hits low-lying towns, you can get massive destruction.

According to measurements, global warming between the 1980s and 2017, anthropogenic or otherwise, is in the order of magnitude of a tenth of one degree Celsius (0.1 ºC). This is well within any conceivable margin of error in measurement; essentially, it means no global warming was recorded. It could be argued that any measurements between 1900 and now, that show warming, are due to uncertainty in measurement and local statistic variance, than anything else. Basically, the whole thing is a storm in a teapot. Those minuscule differences amount to exactly jack shit regarding global climate change. In fact, in the 1970s people thought they observed a global cooling trend, and what’s interesting is that the proposed “cure” was the same: it’s the evil capitalist industrial society that’s to blame, and we need more state power to regulate things and wind down the rampant capitalist development, or we’ll end up in an early ice age. Now, it’s we need more state power to regulate things and wind down the rampant capitalist development, or we’ll end up in an glasshouse jungle, the polar caps will melt and the hurricanes will get us all.

It’s all communist bullshit. When the communist bloc fell apart (in fact, when the extent of Stalin’s crimes was revealed), all the university-educated leftist fucktards in the West lost their main hope for communism to rule the world so they switched their world-saving efforts from class warfare to environmentalism. Now they are adding cultural warfare for transgender bathrooms and language policing to the list of their world-saving efforts.

The leftists are not saving the world. They are fucking it up, from French revolution onwards. The only thing those “progressives” are good at is inventing bullshit theories based on which they kill millions and destroy everybody’s lives. The only ones I know of who were actually saving anything and making actual progress are the likes of Jesus and Buddha. The guys publishing “scientific” articles about anthropogenic global warming are just milking the state funding for what it’s worth.

The evil of antifascism

Posted on by
3

What does the extreme-left madness of Antifa and similar groups tell us?

First, that we live in a society which has a very messed up moral compass, because apparently evil is defined as the “extreme right”, as “Nazi” or some other label; and when you look into it, it’s just crazy people hysterically yelling at other people and trying to provoke violence, and if you want to kill people, you need to first make killing them socially acceptable, so you find a group that’s killable (Nazis, right?) and label the people you want to kill as members of that group. You don’t really need evidence if you yell hard enough and pretend to be a victim of something, because victims have the right to be violent “in self-defense”.

Second, we live in a society which is defined by moral standards set by the winners of the second world war, who of course were good and whose vanquished enemies were evil. It’s interesting, however, how throughout history the good guys always happen to win. The Neanderthals lost because there was something wrong with them, Christianity won over the old European religions because it was superior, Islam spread over the Middle East because it was superior, and in both world wars the good guys happened to win. Communism, unfortunately, never did lose a major war, so today there are people who proudly declare themselves Marxists, from the position of moral high ground, as if communism wasn’t the only economic system that’s scientifically proven not to work, and in the process of providing evidence killed hundreds of millions of people.

Instead of defining good vs. evil through winners and losers of the last big war, I have a different idea: how about defining good as most resembling God, and evil as least resembling God? How about defining good as that which is of reality, consciousness, bliss, beauty and wonder, and evil as that which lacks all those things – which is of delusion, stupidity, suffering, ugliness and baseness? Oh shit, that requires thinking, and that’s difficult for bat-wielding communist idiots.

And finally, fuck antifascism and fascism both. Both are evil ideas of the 20th century, that produced only suffering, ignorance and destruction, and if there was anyone truly good in that entire affair, he must be sought among the countless victims of the flag-waving hysterical idiots and murderers who all thought they are the seedlings of a new and better world.

Guess what, assholes: if you want to improve the world, start by being a worthwhile person. Invent something useful, achieve greatness of all kinds and help others achieve it. Meditate on God and shine His light so that others find God by thinking of you. That’s how you fight evil. Being an “antifascist” is how you become evil and do evil.

Arguments in favour of the state

Posted on by
12

The socialists with their push for more taxation and state power went so far, it recently became popular to advocate for complete anarchy and removal of the state. Let me explain why I think it’s a bad idea.

First, you can’t have a professional standing army with expensive weaponry without the state. This means that you would be defenseless against any state actor that adheres to the Roman type of state that collects taxes in order to finance a professional army. I call it “Roman” because it was Rome who did it first, and it’s the reason why it was so successful militarily. You see, everybody else could obey the call to arms and fight an enemy, but after a while they had to return to their harvests and other work or they would have starved. Rome, however, could simply wait for that to happen and then run them over, because its legions had no such constraints on them. They were paid from tax money. They didn’t have fields to plough. They could do war all year, every day. So, basically, the idea that you can have a weak state where independent humans will answer the call to arms in times of war was put to rest about the time of Caesar’s Gallic wars, if not earlier. The idea that you can have a free citizen with a gun as a basis for a militia that will defend the country was put to rest in WW1, with the advent of industrialized warfare and expensive, specialized, sophisticated weaponry. You can have an AR-15 at home as a multi-purpose weapon that would serve you well in times of war, but what about tanks, ships, planes and rockets? You can’t really own those as a citizen “just in case”, and they don’t have a legitimate civilian purpose. However, you must take it as a fact that in any modern war, your enemy will be armed with those, because he will have a modern state that collects taxes and funds military industry and a professional standing army.

So, war is the main reason why you need a state. The problem arises once the state is formed, and various assholes start thinking of places where tax money could be “better spent”, and then you end up with socialism. The irony is, the socialist disasters such as Britain eventually end up with so many social programs and such an expensive state, they run out of money for the military. Croatia is an even worse example – the state apparatus is so expensive, there’s no money left for either the social programs or the military, and this state is so inherently hostile to private entrepreneurship, the entire private sector is in ruins. The example of Greece demonstrates that not even the tourism can save such a state from collapse indefinitely, but it can limp along for quite a long time, as a parasite that grew so large, the host can no longer imagine existing without it.

In the end, I’m ambivalent regarding the state, because I fully understand and accept all the arguments that show its inherent corruption and evil, however I also cannot see some problems being solved without it, and I don’t think the alternative to the centralized state is some idealized libertarian paradise. The most obvious alternative to the centralized state is some form of oligarchy with multiple centers of power, and I don’t really see how multinational corporations would be better than the states. For an average person, the difference would hardly be perceivable. Instead of a professional army you would have private contractors, and the degree of influence of the individual upon the system would be as minimal as it is in “democracy”, where the corporate media tells you what to think and then you cast a vote for one of the pre-selected candidates. The way the system went crazy when Trump was elected contrary to its will, as probably the first actually democratically elected president in modern American history, shows what a sham this system normally is.

How to improve things? Well, you can’t do it with weak individuals. Weak individuals will always need to aggregate in greater social groups, and if you follow this far enough you eventually get a modern state. In order for that to stop making sense, an individual would need to have such a degree of power that would make social aggregation a matter of preference and not existential need.