May 21 – Aug 9

“Women are insecure and will try to make arbitrary rules in order to protect themselves from future mocking.
I went to a convention recently, someone in our group cosplayed for the first time as her favorite character. There was another cosplayer in the lobby area dressed as that blonde girl from Kancolle. After spending three hours buying random shit, we saw that she was still in the lobby. Someone commented that she must be one of those “professional” cosplayers who just picks a character whose in vogue and poses for pictures.
The cosplayer in our group blew up and told him that he’s the reason women have a hard time in the cosplaying scene.
I really don’t see a lack of women cosplaying, but there’s no point in arguing with women over this.”

“Why do casuals have to try to ruin everything they can’t be a part of, even when offered to be a part of it?”
“They usually don’t want to actually do the thing, they just want to be part of a group because normies fetishize fitting in.”

“When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not ‘measuring’ the world, we are creating it.”

“I think [why are feminists and SJWs really being triggered by GOT Sansa rape scene] is because women don’t like to be reminded how quickly almost any male can quickly dominate, control and degrade them, at a moment’s whim. It only takes one minute for a male to rape a female and instantly take her down about ten notches. They don’t like to be reminded that this could happen to them at any time, that all their safety and status in modern societies can evaporate in the blink of an eye. Or the slap of a dick.”

“>show full of incest, torture and brutal murder (beheadings, slit throats, being burned alive, being eaten alive, having your eyes gouged from your eye-sockets and your head crushed like a melon against the ground)
>a girl was fucked on her wedding night? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!”

“Attacking real people and real institutions doesn’t really work in their favor. Those targets can fight back with facts, logic, and evidence. A much safer way to advance their agenda is to target high profile, culturally relevant entertainment. Soft target. High exposure. High reward.

They go after sci-fi books, comic books, video games, Avengers 2, Game of Thrones, ect. and none of these can fight back on their own. Only fanboys and rejects care enough about this shit to defend these things that, incidentally, make billions of dollars.

The SJW’s can set the terms; more women, gays, trans, less violence, less white, or whatever they want.

They don’t seem unreasonable, especially when the media is reinforcing that it’s the right thing to do. It’s such a small thing to change. It’s more inclusive. It’s progressive. It’s the future. It prevents these fucking harpies from raising a stink. And then the next time around, we hire a prominent feminist and pay her well.

Or a fag. Or a nigger. Or a trans. Or whatever abomination is next.

They go after these things because they’re opportunistic scavengers who stumbled upon a beach covered in dead whales.

So they attack the high profile things making money that can’t fight back or have no one to defend them.

And outrage over a fictional rape is much better than a rape that turns out to be fictional.”

“>They also never define what this “Masculinity Crisis” is.
You’re supposed to infer that from the bajillion other articles on the subject you’re supposed to be reading on jezebel and huffpost and the other feminist outlets.
The “masculinity crisis” is the declining rate of young men who are “manning up” and marrying fat, aging party girls who want to have babies now.”

“traditionalists in 3 2 1.
hey dont be beta
marry that fat used up slut and make white babies.
dont worry about getting divorced and losing everything you worked hard for.
just get married and make babies, everything will be fine dont worry about what happened too those other people”

“Society has gone from a place where YOU had to do shit, in order to survive the next winter, to making people expendable.

If I don’t apply for a shitty job, there are 200 people who will. Why should I always fight to be at the bottom of the barrel doing something that doesn’t matter, for a society that will live on independent of my choice.”

“Actually, this is a good point. Liberals want to eschew gender roles, so why is waning masculinity a bad thing? Why does it matter who presents what behaviour?”

“Women still want all the advantages of a monogamous, devoted husband who works all day to support her and however many kids she wishes to have. That is why they’re complaining about the lack of traditional males – having a traditional male is very advantageous to a woman. They just don’t want to have to hold up their end of the bargain.”

“This has been repeated a million times before in this thread, but these are the last areas where a man can be what he was meant to be, act out his instincts, see positive and negative consequences of his actions.. And it’s simulated. How fucking pathetic is that?

Look at the modern-day man. He grew up in the feminized public school system, where his natural drive for competition is curbed – everybody gets a trophy. He was discouraged from being active and told to spend 8 hours of his day sitting in a chair and learning things that have no practical application to him, from his point of view. And then he goes through high school and what once was an exercise in learning soon becomes an exercise in obedience, being taught impractical concepts that he will have no use for unless he goes into certain select fields… And his reward for this is a mark on a paper that means good or bad. This means absolutely nothing to him. No short-term consequences come from this mark to teach him that a D is any worse than a C, no significant quality-of-life improvements come to him to teach him that an A+ is above an A-. He is supposed to find his own fulfillment in receiving arbitrary marks… Something that females happen to naturally crave.

He then either goes into college – in which case the process continues for another 2-8 years, – or goes into the work force, where his natural instincts are continually punished and told to be quiet. Wanting to make improvements to his work environment is not allowed, it’s not part of the company’s policy. Wanting to streamline and make things more efficient is punished because it represents a threat to his boss. Bending rules to help out is punished. He finally gets that short term reward that makes men tick in the form of cash, but instead of being given to him for doing a good job, it’s being given to him for being a good serf, knowing his place, obeying all rules to the letter, and not threatening the pyramid. He then sees people far less qualified than him be promoted for fulfilling these qualities.. A situation which seems very wrong to man. Shouldn’t the most competent, not the most complacent, get the position?

I could go on about the modern woman and why finding fulfillment in that is a lost cause too, but I don’t want to come off as MGTOW.

So let’s look at video games.. Completing objectives in these games have noticeable quality of life improvements within the game world. Skill and efficiency is rewarded, not punished. Competition is encouraged and the satisfaction of victory is allowed to be savored. And there are often long-term goals to work towards, all things that jack right in to the male’s need to have a sense of accomplishment, a sense of fulfillment, or he considers himself lesser. It’s no wonder these things are incredibly male-dominated and it’s no wonder more and more young men are choosing to become shut-ins who focus solely on their computers. It’s the last place he’s allowed to be a man without repercussion.

As for pornography.. If you give a rat a button that triggers an orgasm, he’ll press that button until he dehydrates. Humans are surprisingly similar.”


“University of California President Clark Kerr enthused in the 1960s that the “production, distribution, and consumption of ‘knowledge’ in all its forms is said to account for 29 percent of the gross national product, and knowledge production is growing at about twice the rate of the rest of the economy…” Kerr’s vision of the future of this new industry was stirring: “What the railroads did for the second half of the last century and the automobile for the first half of this century,” Kerr predicted, “may be done in the second half of this century by the knowledge industry…”

At the heart of Kerr’s vision of the university as a vast mill churning out brightly polished new bits of knowledge was a new sort of professor. As universities became more like businesses, he wrote, “The professor – at least in the natural and some of the social sciences – takes on the characteristics of an entrepreneur.”

Indeed, professors who succeeded in tapping the system of private and public grants for research quickly became powers in their own right in academia. Because they brought in money, they were considered virtually self-employed. And this fundamentally changed the politics of university power and funding.

[…] “The result,” wrote sociologists David Riesman and Christopher Jencks in 1968, “is that large numbers of PH.D.s regard themselves as independent professionals like doctors or lawyers, responsible primarily to themselves and their colleagues rather than their employers…””

“In the prestige-maximizing equation, the quality of incoming undergraduates counts, but the quality of their instruction does not.”

“The student revolution of the 1960s took the new professoriate by surprise […] In the wake of the student uprisings, the public image was that of the university as prostrate before the triumphant student. But both winners and losers were preordained. The student revolt was destined for defeat by the simple logic of higher education: The students would eventually graduate and pass on; the professors would remain.

Until the 1960s, the greatest barrier for the new breed of professor was the tattered but still lingering obligation of the university to teach undergraduates a generally defined body of information. As long as universities felt the responsibility to offer up courses that would at least expose students to the broad expanse of Western civilization […] – and as long as universities continued to define themselves by the knowledge they hoped to impart to students – there were built-in limits on just how far the professoriate could go in its flight from teaching. The 1960s resolved that problem, spectacularly.

The young revolutionaries thought they had unshackled themselves from a rigidly authoritarian curriculum. They had really unshackled the professoriate from the students themselves.
The professors were not slow in exploiting the opening.”

“At one point, zeroing on a witness, [State Senator Gordon Roseleip] asked: “Professor, exactly how many hours do you and your colleagues teach in the classroom?”

“Nine,” the witness answered gravely.”

Even to Senator Roseleip that sounded reasonable, perhaps more than reasonable, and he settled back in his chair, satisfied for the moment. But something in the professor’s manner prompted him to seek reassurance a few minutes later.

“When you testified earlier that you taught nine hours, you meant nine hours a *day*, of course, didn’t you?” In the audience, the assembled academics, on hand to protect their patch from the Neanderthals and bullies of the legislature, shifted uneasily. Some rolled their eyes. No, the witness answered with a touch of professorial indignation, he had meant nine hours a week.

The senator did not audibly respond.”

“The academic establishment insists that only professors who do research can be good teachers, so they need to spend most of their time outside the classroom; and because they are off researching, they are replaced by part-timers or temporaries who may do little or no research at all. Academia has an almost infinite capacity for ignoring such contradictions, especially when the payoff is high.”

“Because it packs students into large lecture courses as freshmen and sophomores, the University [of California at Berkeley] saves a great deal of money which is then used to offer an amazing diversity of upper-division and graduate level courses.”

“At Yale, Bruce Tiffney also won a teaching award. He was informed of it in a letter from the dean. When he read the letter, he recalls, “I let out a whoop of laughter so loud my wife came in to see what was the matter.” Two weeks earlier, Tiffney had been denied tenure after nine years as a junior professor.”


“There is nothing wrong with believing in any religion, as long as you don’t judge or impose your beliefs on anyone. Who are you to judge? If you believe in a god, let him or her judge, not you.”

“What an oddly specific definition of a god. Are you trying to impose your beliefs on me?”


“We tell the guy, ‘You have about six years to turn out articles to get tenure.’ He’s about as interested in pursuing intellectual questions as the man in the moon, because intellectual thought is non-precise, it does not lead to well constructed arguments that can be published. If I have one original idea in my lifetime, I think, God bless me. And if I were to develop this, I would like at least 10 years to be able to think about it and develop it. But you can’t afford that. The very first year a faculty member is up [for review], you look at the vita. And if it’s blank you tell him, ‘Why don’t you try going somewhere else?’ So the guy’s interest is not to think about serious intellectual questions but to play the game.”

“Could the professors somehow develop a philosophical justification that would make their abject neglect and the resulting ignorance of their students seem a virtue? This would, of course, involve turning the values of higher education almost literally on their head. But nothing is impossible in the academic culture for those who have faith.

[…] The key was use of the words “diversity” and “pluralism,” with their impeccable democratic credentials. Academics quickly found they exercised an almost mesmerizing effect on policymakers. But the rape of the language did not stop there. If curricular gibberish was now “diversity,” then the traditional standards must be elitism, and anyone who advocated even a modicum of rationality in the curriculum must not only be anti-democratic, but potentially even fascistic.”

“If the flexible curriculum runs the danger of allowing academic narrowness in students,” [Dean Walter Massey, Brown University] explained, “the overly prescribed curriculum runs the dangers of encouraging students to believe they are educated when they finish college.”

In the past, of course, people went to college specifically because they *did* believe that when they were finished they would be educated. *That was the point.* That was why they paid so much money for it. That was why they devoted four years of their life to study. But at Brown, the gurus of the academic culture succeeded beyond their wildest dreams – not merely in abolishing traditional standards but in inverting the very purposes of higher education.

Of course, the reality is that at the heart of the New Curriculum is neither a body of knowledge nor concern for the students nor their “intellectual independence.” A Brown dean hints at the actual agenda that underlies the ideology of the New Curriculum when he said: “What a lot of people don’t realize is that the faculty has much more freedom than students do under this curriculum…” […]

When the College Board, for example, made the modest suggestion in 1983 that college entrants ought to be competent in such things as standard English (vocabulary, sentence structures, and what not), Professor James Sledd, an emeritus professor of English at the University of Texas, weighed in with an indignant rebuttal in the English Journal.

The College Board had noted that “Without such competencies, knowledge of history, science, language, and all other subjects is unattainable.” To Sledd this was “transparently false.”

“A person (need one say it?) can learn a huge amount without being able to read or write at all…,” Sledd declared. “Quite simply, it is a gross injustice to demand a mastery of standard English who through no fault of their own, have had no chance to master it.” That is because standard English is “the language of privilege” that is now “essentially a tool and instrument of the dominant for purposes of domination.”

“The research culture is founded on an almost religious faith in the search for new knowledge, and professors have a marked tendency to drift toward pietistic unctiousness in describing the importance of their work. In practice, however, a more apt parallel for the professors is with the alchemist, sorcerer, and witch doctor who relies on the power of obscure incantations, obfuscation, and the infinite capacity of mind-darkening jargon to intimidate and mystify the uninitiated. The professoriate’s success with this sleight of hand is evident in its continuing dominance over higher education and its $120 billion wallet.”

“No matter what an individual’s capacities or talents, the academic culture demands that every professor and would-be professor produce research that is “original,” breaking previously uncharted ground. Unfortunately, originality is no more commonplace among academics than among any other sector of the population. But the requirement in the universities today is universal and enforced without exception or appeal. […]

“Consider the assumption behind the [Ph.D],” [Jacques] Barzun wrote in The American University. “It is noticed that trained minds who investigate a subject and write a book about it sometimes make a contribution to knowledge. Valuing knowledge, we preposterize the idea and say to every intending college teacher: ‘you shall write a book, and it shall be a contribution to knowledge’… everybody shall produce written research in order to live, and it shall be decreed a knowledge explosion.”

But if the Ph.D. is an example of preposterism, the requirement that young professors produce a dozen or so articles for the learned journals to win tenure is the reductio ad absurdum of the research mentality, because it assumes that academics can make original discoveries every few months or so. […] At one time, a thinker like Immanuel Kant could afford to wait until he was 57 to publish his Critique of Pure Reason. Many senior professors still on the payroll slipped into tenure with only a handful of publications or even none at all. But the pressure to publish now is so great that few junior professors can afford to risk taking on a large or meaty problem or wait until their judgments are considered or mature.

How much safer to put research in bits and pieces, to capture some small corner of reality and present it in a manner designed to emphasize the profundity of the discovery.”


“If by industrialization, you mean the machines we developed in the 1700s and 1800s, well the ancients lacked the notion that fire or steam could push things.

and you cant really blame them. It is not very intuitive. Fire seems rather dainty.”

“I feel sure that advances like the steam engine didn’t happen because of concerns about the labor market and, just as in the American South, what do you do about all these slaves? I think Aristocrats and aristocratic societies instinctively and correctly sense their doom in self-moving gewgaws of any kind. Think of Tolkien’s undying hatred of machinery.”


“Most of the “experiments” reported were trivial and involved pathetically limited data. The average length of experiments in one area was one week. Data were, moreover, difficult and often impossible to verify. When researchers were asked for material to support their conclusions, much of it turned out to have been destroyed by the researcher. Attempts by one researcher to reproduce or check the results claimed by another researcher – the heart of the scientific method in the hard sciences – were almost unheard of in the social sciences, [Gerald W.] Bracey found, because “such activity counts for nothing with those who are counting publications…”

One of the reasons such sloppiness is tolerated may be that few academics bother to read much of what passes for scholarship these days, even as the number of journals continues to mount. “More and more people are writing more and more articles that fewer and fewer people are reading,” Bracey says.

Studies of the phenomenon of the [academic] journals have led to the promulgation of what could be called The One Percent Rule. Among scientists, half of all technical reading is done in less than 1 percent of the scientific journals. Less than 1 percent of all journal articles have anything more than the tiniest readership, while any given article is probably read by less than one percent of the journal’s readers. “Needless to say,” remarked one researcher, “the motivation to read appears to fall far short of the motivation to publish.”

“We seem to be headed toward a situation where ‘knowledge production’ (as they like to call it in universities) is an exercise in solipsism,” Bracey says. “The chief benificiary is the author, who gets promotions, tenure, prestige, and more grants to write more stuff that won’t be read.” One particularly outrageous career-making gambit is the practice by some professors who publish the same findings over and over again under separate headings. The result is what Bracey calls the “Thanksgiving Turkey Vita.”

“I’ve seen 80-page resumes with separate listings for data reported at local, state, regional, and national meetings, as an interim report, an article, and a chapter in a book,” Bracey says. A related maneuver is the practice of multiple authoership, so that several professors can reap professional rewards from a single paper. “Can it be,” Bracey wonders, “that six people at four institutions really ‘authoered’ a five-page article?”

Although they play such a large role int heir professional lives, even the professors themselves admit that the journals are largely useless. A survey by the American Council of Learned Societies found that a solid majority of professors in seven disciplines (classics, history, language/linguistics, literature, philosophy, political science, and sociology) admitted that it is virtually impossible “to keep up even minimally” in their field. “There are far too many journals, and most of what they publish is ignorant drivel,” one respondent said. The survey found a majority agreeing that the journals’ peer review system, in which panels of supposedly neutral professors review articles submitted for publication, is biased in favor of well-known professors, those from prestigious schools, and those who use “currently fashionable approaches.” One respondent charge that the leading journal in his field is controlled by a “small circle of prima donnas who shut out challenges to the theories on which they have made their reputations.””


“The genius of feminism is its ability to encompass contradictory poles of morality at the same time, such as the Enlightenment libertine mentality of the French Revolution on one hand….and the sex-negative hyper-moral Puritan mentality on the other. This is best shown in Simone de Beauvoir’s famous historical attempt to reconcile the lascivious sexual liberation theories of the Enlightenment thinker MARQUIS DE SADE with the anti-male, sex-negative purist theories of the old feminist orthodoxy. It’s had an impact on subsequent feminist theory ever since. This is how feminism is able to hold a slutty amoral libertine position on women’s behavior in society on one hand and also at the same time hold a very prude, conservative, hyper-moral puritan attitude about the display of women’s bodies in cultural media.

Sadism + Puritanism + statism + estrogen = Feminism

Crazy, right? The best embodiment of this profane marriage of contradictory perspectives is the SLUTWALK. The slutwalk brings out the schizophrenic vision of Simone de Beauvoir. In that self-righteous show of whores, the wet dream of Marquis de Sade merges with that of the Suffragettes.

Feminism is basically a rage fit in defense of female egotism.”

“Yesterday, we learned that what really matters is the intent of the legislators when they write a law, not the actual text of the law, even when this supposed intent directly contradicts the text. (And despite the fact that Jonathan Gruber, the man most responsible for the text of the bill, has explicitly said that yes, he intended for states that don’t establish exchanges to not receive subsidies.)

Today, we learn that despite the fact that the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment in the nineteenth century admittedly certainly did not intend to legalize gay marriage throughout the entire country, and never would have imagined that what they wrote would do so, that this is nevertheless what its clauses do. So you see, intention matters except when it doesn’t.

A simple-minded man might think that this is a contradiction, but our masters in black know better. You see, the correct rule for interpretation is really quite simple, do whatever you can to twist and turn the Constitution to best achieve the result that the Supreme Court has already decided it wants.

There is no doubt that sniveling sycophants will reply that the rulings are actually consistent because while the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly never imagined that they were legalizing gay marriage they nevertheless did think that they were protecting fundamental liberties and it is only later that “we” learned that one of those liberties was the right of two men to get married. Therefore, intent really is what matters, it is just that over time we can come to learn that the outcome of that intent is different than what was supposed by the authors.

Very well. Then, when the authors of Obamacare intended for states that did not establish exchanges to not receive subsidies, they did not imagine that many states would not establish exchanges and only later learned that this was not going to happen, thereby changing the outcome of the implementation of their intent. Even though the authors of the bill were unaware of this particular consequence, it is nevertheless the law, just as how despite the fact that the legislators of the nineteenth century did not intend for the Fourteenth Amendment to force all states to legalize gay marriage, this is nevertheless precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment does.

Therefore, even by this arcane reckoning these two rulings cannot be reconciled.”

“Slippery slope is a fallacy… except that it has accurately and consistently predicted all of Western economic and social policy for the past 60 years”

“How can you maintain a union where half of the country views the other half as completely evil cretins? I’m sure Jim Bob who just wants to work at an auto parts store in Knoxville, Tennessee is an evil bigot for thinking that Bruce Jenner wearing cosmetic tits and parading around as a women is weird. The left is just inventing these esoteric moral cudgels that they can hit average people over the head with who have no idea what you’re talking about. What’s funny is that they really are setting up an us-versus-them narrative against the entire world. Africans think you’re degenerate, Muslims think you’re degenerate, the Chinese and Indians have no idea what you’re talking about. In their universes, they’re the obviously right ones and you’re insane.

Which leads me to the other stupefying aspect of this, the smug moral superiority. These retards believe their own shit about “progress” and that they’re better than their ancestors. Bitch please, if you were born and raised in 17th century Puritan New England, I’m sure you’d be a progressive with modern-day sensibilities instead of burning people at the stake because everybody else was doing it, you social-approval needing scum.”

“Slippery slope is a fallacy… except that it has accurately and consistently predicted all of Western economic and social policy for the past 60 years”

“You know what this “slippery slope fallacy” shit is? The M.O. of the left is literally to prevent people from attempting to use their brains. “Who Are You To Judge”, “Not All Women Are Like That”, “He Dindu Nuffin, He Wus Turnin His Life Around” – all these are ANTI-PATTERN RECOGNITION.

They never say that another pattern is more accurate and go on to explain the pattern they think is real, or that the pattern posited is wrong, their premise (other than “I have the moral high ground no I’m not listening nyeh nyeh nyeh”) is that THERE ARE NO PATTERNS.


“I wouldn’t normally link to Buzzfeed, but this beautifully validates themes I’ve been speaking about for years, and am currently writing about. Corporate interests have been way out in front of both public opinion and public policy on these issues because commercial interests will always want to expand their appeal and therefore their market. There is no “moral enlightenment” happening. There is a normalizing of the idea that everyone’s money is good, and anyone who could alienate a customer base by exclusion can easily be made out to be small-minded and hateful. Everything that doesn’t threaten commercial interests becomes morally good, and only those who discriminate, exclude, disapprove or separate are in the way of expansion. Neither love nor reason have anything to do with anything. That shit is storytime for the plebs.”

“I thought I had seen the day when America elected a president solely because of his race. I thought they would learn after all of his scandals, all of his failures. Yet again I saw the day where I was disappointed.
Then came the massive push for political correctness. People afraid of losing their jobs, getting mobbed on the street. Just for having an opinion. Thats never happened before.
Schools began to censor and rewrite history for our children. For the first time ever, things are being severely dumbed down and rewritten.
Attacks on freedom of speech everywhere, all over the world in unison for this new world order. Rapid diversity and immigration to the point where whites no longer have a homeland.
Heritage is burnt to the ground and laws are being replaced with feelings. Massive riots are justified by the corporate media as a necessary aggression against racism.
Men are pacified by anti aggression laws and harsh sentences for even the smallest infraction, often which follows one all their lives.
Returning veterans are ignored, treated like shit by our court system and have their rights taken away if they show the slightest sign of breaking.
And now we have this, where in an early morning meeting, 9 people, unelected by the United States citizens, decided a position on the most controversial subject in the world. Permanently forcing all states to accept gay marriage without question.
And they praise it. They praise the tyranny that stamped down upon their enemies with one foot. These people say its progressive, that its a human right.”

“>I really don’t care if they can marry or not as it doesn’t concern me.
>it doesn’t concern me

A person can say that about a lot of things in their country (tens of thousands lost their jobs, but it doesn’t concern me. illegal immigrants go unpunished, but it doesn’t concern me, kids are getting pregnant at 14 but it doesn’t concern me, divorce rates are through the roof and the family unit is crumbling but it doesn’t concern me), but in the end, no, even in the short term, the path your country takes will affect you significantly. The fact that you’re seeing all this mindless nonsense and being annoyed is already a negative effect of the gay movement. What about when you get fired for complaining about your gay coworker hitting on you? Everything has consequences, please be very, very, very careful when you say “it doesn’t concern me.”

Even WE’RE steeped in “tolerance”, “live and let live”, and “none o m’ business” now? Mr. Bones, where’s the end?”


“Like private companies, all countries disintegrate into bloated mush when run continuously at a loss.”

“When we judge “Charter Cities” as a bureaucratic proposal, we must judge it by bureaucratic standards. And we can. The proposal fails not because it is morally obtuse or academically dishonest, though it is both; it fails because it will never be tried, and if it is won’t work.

Why is the Third World a kleptocracy, rather than a capitalist utopia? Let’s take Cuba, renowned worldwide for the purity of its revolutionary ideology. In their promotion of European and Canadian tourism, the Castros have proven canny, avaricious and unromantic businessmen, fine evidence that they were always just thugs and never believed in the whole caper to begin with. Even without Professor Romer, it’s quite clear that the Chinese model is extremely profitable and effective. Cuba doesn’t need Guantanamo, and it doesn’t need Canadians – it has no shortage of competent administrators. It could set up a special economic zone anywhere. Why doesn’t it?

The answer is that the existence of any such entity would constitute an immediate political threat to their regime. Why does socialism abhor private corporations? Because a corporation is a power structure which is not subject to official authority. In a Communist propaganda state, dependent on the continuous mass adulation of its subjects, no such independence is tolerable.

In more kleptocratic regimes, such as are found in Africa, the problem is even simpler and cruder: everyone in government steals. Anyone in government who does not steal is a threat, because his hands are clean while everyone else’s are dirty. He might go to the Americans, and they might make him President. And any enterprise which cannot be stolen from is a threat, because every other enterprise will demand the same privilege.

If Professor Romer expects these types of regimes to cede him a tract of uninhabited land, he is dreaming. All Third World nations are saturated with anticolonialist religion, which will trivially recognize his proposal for exactly what it is, and provides the best possible basis for directing political violence against it. That’s how the Third World got to be the Third World, after all. Look at what happened when the Koreans tried to rent a farm – a mere farm, if a big one – from Madagascar. Fortunately, so far only about 100 people have been killed.

A genuine autocrat, who had completely abolished politics, might be able to pull it off. Of course, a genuine autocrat could just hire Western administrators himself. (More sacrilege!) Indeed, as Waugh points out, a genuine autocrat can generally maintain a decent level of order with natives alone, or he is not much of an autocrat. It does not take a lot of good people to rule a country, and almost every country has a gene pool capable of producing them. Papua New Guinea may be an exception, for example, but Haiti is certainly not. The problem is not natives; the problem is the combination of natives and democracy.

Dubai is an excellent case in point, because the Dubai miracle seems to be fraying a bit. The problem is that Dubai is not a perfect autocracy; it is not Sheikh Mohammed’s private country. He sits at the top of a tribal power structure, which cannot be overly abused. To maintain their position, the sheikhs have to hand out free sinecures – jobs public and private – to the Emirati population, which is world-renowned for its abhorrence of actual work.

The result is that Emirati bureaucrats, especially in security positions, find it relatively easy to abuse the Western guests who actually make Dubai profitable, or at least apparently profitable. (With so many real-estate loans, it’s hard to know.) The entire country is afflicted with this giant deadweight of native parasites, who can easily become sadistic as well as expensive.

Thus, the idea of “charter cities” or special economic zones as a cure for bad government in the Third World is inherently a bad one, because bad governments will not tolerate these entities. Good governments will follow reasonable rules, conducive to business, already – as both China and Dubai do.

Abstractly, a much more reasonable place to put a “charter city” is on First World territory. The US, for instance, has no shortage of uninhabited land. Build a new Guantanamo somewhere in the middle of Montana – call it Montanamo. Residency in Montanamo does not imply residency in the US, and Montanamo has a huge fence around it to make this point clear. Fly in the Haitian helots, bus in the Canadian proconsuls, and you’ve got your city going.

Of course, this will never happen either. Even First World government dislikes competition, because even First World governments these days have more than a little Third World nature. The First World is the past; the Third World is the future. Hello, California.

But let’s suppose it did. In this case, good government would still be unlikely to emerge and persist – because we have neglected the entire reason that the Third World came to be.

Third World countries are “independent,” but they are not in any sense independent. The word “independent,” as you may notice, consists of two parts, “in” and “dependent.” “In” means “not.” “Dependent” means “dependent.”

As we all know, the typical Third World regime is heavily dependent on “aid.” But more subtly, it is also dependent on the military protection of the “international community,” against both internal and external threats. (A while ago, I noticed that the phrase “international community” could be profitably replaced, in all contexts, by “State Department,” without any change in meaning.) The latter is a much more serious form of dependency.

Under classical international law, diplomatic recognition was a de facto judgment; a regime was recognized as a government if it appeared to be in stable control of its country. Under its American replacement, modern “international law,” diplomatic recognition is an attribution of legitimacy – to put it baldly, the decision that a regime is an acceptable American client. Through this mechanism alone, the “international community” can provide extremely effective protection to any “allied” regime, simply by making it clear that any replacement will not be recognized – and is thus unprotected against any contender which is acceptable to Foggy Bottom.

Thus the relationship of genuine independence, as practiced in all previous centuries, is extremely foreign to modern international relations. Countries genuinely independent of America are those few which can enforce their sovereignty by military means: China, Russia, perhaps Iran and Venezuela. But even the last two would cave quickly, I suspect, if treated like Rhodesia or South Africa. This leaves us with: China, Russia. Effectively, there are three true, sovereign nations in the world: China, Russia, and the “international community.”

What this tells us is that whatever decolonialization is about, it is not about the actual political independence of the client country. No such independence exists. For any normal Third World country, Foggy Bottom has all the tools it needs to impose a level of administrative control just as close as any authority Cromer exercised over Egypt. The leaders of these countries do not take all their orders from the American Embassy – but they could easily be made to, at America’s sole discretion.

A so-called country in this state is not a true sovereign. It is at best a protectorate. And that old bugaboo – colony – remains perfectly appropriate.

So why, if the State Department could already rule the Third World or most of it, doesn’t it? Doesn’t this conflict with the principle that all bureaucracies tend to expand their own power?

Actually, the present state of the “international community” is a perfect reflection of bureaucratic imperatives. Bureaucracies tend to maximize their impact. They are often quite shy about expanding their authority, especially if it is formal authority – because once you take authority over something, you have essentially taken responsibility for it. Bureaucracies are not fond of responsibility. Who wants to be responsible for the Third World?

Perhaps the dirtiest secret of decolonialization is that bureaucracies prefer the postcolonial model to the colonial model, “advice” and “aid” to actual rule, because the postcolonial model generates more jobs. Vastly more Westerners are involved in failing to run the Third World, than ran thee same countries successfully when they were colonies.

For example, to run Egypt – a country of 10 million people, then – Cromer had about 1000 British civil servants. If you count all the Western diplomats, development experts, NGOistas, and the like, for whom the present parlous state of Egypt provides employment, how many do you get? A lot more than 1 per 10,000 Egyptians, I suspect. How many Westerners are employed in bandaging and rebandaging the permanent ulcer of Africa? Um, a lot.

The Third World, as a government program, is just another permanent money hole on the balance sheet of the developed world. Just as with any business they operate, governments – Western governments – have turned their colonies into operations whose goal is to employ as many civil servants as possible. Any type of efficiency or success is a menace to these programs, not a boon.

Good government is always small government, and small government does not scale as a jobs program. If you have one Canadian Cromer running Guantanamo City like a startup, there is no room for everyone’s students to go to Toronto and get jobs. You probably don’t need more than a hundred Canadians to rule Guantanamo City. Colonial regimes are simply too good – they achieved remarkable and unprecedented bureaucrat-to-subject ratios.

Whereas if the Canadians say “yes” to the Guantanamo People’s Party, allows elections, and thus replaces the professional Canadian administrators with illiterate Haitian demagogues, they create a jobs boom in the Guantanamo-advising business. For every administrative position that disappears, ten will be created in aid and development assistance. It may not be in the interest of Canada, or Guantanamo City, to bring about this change – indeed, it isn’t. But it is surely in the interest of whatever Canadian agency is running Guantanamo City.

Thus the practical problem with “charter cities” is that no one wants them: not the host regime, not the international regime. For both, they simply work too well. Colonialism had to die not because it didn’t work, but because it worked too well.”

“The worse the business, the more managers it needs.”

“[W]e must remember colonialism, because colonial governments provided some of the highest-quality government in history. And, as Seeley points out, they worked on completely different principles than the democratic regimes from which they sprang. Froude once said that if Ireland could be made a Crown Colony, it would outshine England herself. He didn’t say what would happen if England was made a Crown Colony – but perhaps he was thinking it.”


“>use shit load of whites
>where are the no PoC?!
>add niggers
>act like niggers
>tone down the nigger side
>why are they acting like whites?!
is this shit for real?”

“Even in a more relaxed scenario, these fucks will change the goalposts on you.
>not enough POC
“The game lacks diversity”
>Add POC
“That’s cultural appropriation and you, as a white dev, have no business putting it in your game.
It’s a fucking scam. Liberal extremists have devised a system where they can literally bitch about anything and never, ever, be happy.”

“spanish retards spamming chat”
“oh shut up, let it be, this is NA server and NA is not just english”
“”let it be” why don’t you move to sweden?”
“if you want english chat go to a UK server”
“but UK speaks Turkish”

“>I was raped and am so triggered about it.
>But I did send dirty messages to my ‘rapist’ after the event begging for sex.
>and I had no problem selling myself as a ‘rape vicitm’ and making a triggering event part of my identity.
>and I also have no problem cashing in on filming a porno of my ‘rape’. But please remember I’m a victim and need your support.”

“Social Justice Warrior: “Those conservatives sure are anti-science! Creationism? Haha! What century do you think they’re stuck in?!”

Social Justice Warrior: “By the way, sex and gender aren’t real, and I for one identify as transotherkin and stop oppressing me and my identity””

“I pointed out to the general contractor that what was there didn’t match the drawing and he still asked for payment, my boss agreed it didn’t match but was wishy-washy and didn’t want to offend either me or the general contractor, so he was a fucking wanker.

So I played both of them.

All the subcontractors and engineers knew I was right, so I didn’t care. It didn’t match the damned drawing. No amount of anyone asking me to sign for money or redesigning is going to make the thing on the field match the drawing.

I told my boss if he really thought it was okay to spend more time and money redesigning around the error, he could override me and sign it himself because he’s my superior. He did go and sign it and I ended up designing even though it should’ve been some subcontractor’s job. Which was fine, because when a person makes a major error in one place he’s likely to make another, and that’s exactly what happened.

As it so happens, the GC did made another gigantic mistake, but this time, I kept my mouth shut. I kept it shut until the final inspection, at which point I asked him where the goods were. My boss backed me up this time, probably because if he didn’t, he’d have to sign it and be responsible and then fired when the system goes operational and his higher ups get complaints on it critically failing. Of course the subcontractors don’t care either. They were paid to do what they were told to do, they don’t care if some other person says they were “wrong”, they did it according to their drawings. So we went up to the GC’s superintendent, and in the end they had to scrap that whole part and do it all over again, on their dime.

After they finally turned in the project correctly, I told the GC I knew about the mistake the entire time.

What’s he gonna do?”

“>Debating them isn’t what should happen in /v/, because /v/ is about video games. Not someone’s politics. I always wanted politics to be put at the door while people enjoy or shit on video games.
If a thread is about politics and vidya, ignore it. If a post is political, ignore it.
If the thread has become about politics, consider your company.
People have made other boards for nothing but vidya discussion. They suck.”

“Some observations about Dylann Roof. More specifically, what is NOT happening in the wake of his shooting:
1) Nobody in the white American culture that I have encountered has said, via the media, social media or anywhere else, that he killed those people because he’s poor, or because he’s underprivileged, misunderstood or a gentle giant, etc. Nobody has made excuses for him or tried to present him as an angel. Even the media-selected pictures you see of him–unlike those of Trayvon or Brown–are seemingly designed to present him as the son of Satan
2) Nobody has blamed his victims. People could have pointed to the fucking massive whale in the room of constant, unprovoked and seemingly inexplicable flash mobs, assaults, rapes and murders of white Americans by black Americans. Dylann has already hinted that it was his chief motivation, yet nobody seems to want to talk about that.
3) White Americans aren’t rioting.
4) White Americans aren’t looting.
5) White Americans aren’t acting as though, via Dylann, they’re the REAL victims in all this.
6) White Americans aren’t randomly shooting cops.
7) White Americans aren’t forming professional protest groups for George Soros to funnel tens of millions of dollars to.
8) White Americans aren’t “owning” Dylann. They’re very publicly, in every way imaginable, disowning him. They’re basically doing the exact opposite of those who supported Trayvon, Brown, et al, did.
9) We dont have a paid race baiter like Al Sharpton to “blame black people for provoking him.””

“Every time I have seen the sentiment “who cares, let them do what they want” it is always “let them drag their group [e.g. friends, team, nation] down”.
It is never “let that guy burn him a new asshole in public, he needs to learn a fucking lesson in not being intentionally counterproductive”.”

“The narrative of racism in America that they are promoting is factually false. And the indignation with which many in the media are viewing this incident is totally unjustified, not because the act in question wasn’t immoral, but rather because the media itself doesn’t have the moral legitimacy to condemn it in the self righteous way that it is. ”

“Focusing all of your energy on removing the battle flag that flies over the south carolina confederate war memorial is probably the most petty thing you could possibly use the deaths of 9 people for.

Really I view this primarily as a means of belittling the mostly poor, working class southerners who identify with the flag. This is the left’s favorite pastime, and there are also many chamber of commerce type Republicans who get tingles from doing this as well.

Most controversies can be boiled down to people signalling how morally superior they are to [backwards yokels].”

“Somewhere in the hive mind of mainstream consciousness, people are arguing about the Confederate flag. This was not important yesterday and has not been important for a hundred years. That it is suddenly the most important issue in the world merely demonstrates the power of suggestion and shows that people will freak out about whatever the media decides they are going to freak out about. DANCE, MONKEYS, DANCE!”

“Well now we’re going to see if the slippery slope is real. Maybe in 10 years.”
“We don’t have to wait 10 years. We just have to look back 10 years.”

“>asking people if something is possible
>saying you are motivated
you can only choose one”

“Why does infrastructure cost so much money,and take too long to build these days?”

“Lets say you need to put a sign up on a state project, you need a 2×2 foot concrete base 4 inches thick, the state will have an inspector there watching your every move, when the truck pulls up he wants a sample to check the Slump ( thickness ) he will make sue its 2x2x4 inches and be a general pain in the ass looking over everyone shoulders.

Thats just a sign, do that on a 100 million $ project and you have an army of state inspectors to watch every fucking move.”

“You left some shit off.

The bid came in off of an estimate that run roughly 50-36% profit margin included. That company in turn took various bids from a number of subcontractor companies whom often run 24-35% profit margin in their bids. Those subcontractor companies often subcontract out additional work to other companies with similar contract margins of profit. And eventually it gets down to an actual tradesman whom is working on contract or thru an boss supervisor for peanuts. And generally things follow in line after other trades in time. Meaning you cannot pour the slab until the fucking sewage and plumbing has been laid, they don’t get laid until the plastic is down over the sculpted substrate. The substrate had to be prepared before that in several different ways. And if one thing goes wrong, you gotta come back the next day, which can push all the contractors behind you, off a day as well and on down the line.

In supposedly ‘streamlined’ civilian companies the graft (profit) off of each project can run upwards of 65-80% of the end cost. When you start doing government work, you have additional graft and corruption costs which have to be accounted for since such projects take an even longer period of time to complete.

Then you factor in the fact that corporations and other such companies MUST run as a credit reliant operation in order to avoid various tax issues, they have to include the interest on all that money they are going to have to front run till the end of the project, at which time they get paid.

Shit adds up fast as fuck. This isn’t the 1930’s where G-man says, hey architect dude, makes some plans for this project over here. And hey foreman dude, here is your fucking plans, hire some kids direct and get this shit done pronto bitch. And everyone gets to rocking and rolling. Today even minor projects can take the better part of a decade to organize and setup before the project is even completed and all of that time costs money in some way.”

“Charity literally only exists as a way to monetize PR.”

“”How does the remainder of the developed world manage to provide free health care, much more social programs, etc., on a lower effective tax rate?” The main method is to pretend to provide health care without actually providing. What is available is the right to stand in a queue for free. The amount of healthcare is determined by the numbers of health professionals and number of hours they work, not by a sign saying its free. According to the left, one doctor, one nurse, one hospital bed, and a sign saying it’s free is all that’s needed for the best system in the world. “

“MMO’s aren’t about socializing anymore. They haven’t been about that in a long time. They all have the exact same dated themepark gameplay systems that adhere to the exact same rules that Lineage/Warcraft set over a decade ago. The only reason they haven’t evolved or god forbid changed the formula one bit is to due technology limitations and that developers are fucking lazy.
The more prominently issue though is the fact that MMO’s started getting hyper popular, which resulted in more people who had NEVER played games before, firing up the latest whack a mole sim. Suddenly, everyone and their grandma is playing MMO’s.
Now you’ve got a bunch of idiots with their heads up their asses running around in a big open world, confused as all hell, while slowly, the genre has to pander to the lowest common denominator, in turn making the game’s easier, and easier, and EASIER. Now you’ve got a genre that’s as easy to play then any MOBA on the market, and now you don’t even have buy to play 99% of them.
So just like anything else, popularity killed MMO’s just like everything else in the gaming industry. No body wants to talk to one another in the world, they just want to spam 1 2 and 3 to complete their kill quest objective. The levels and number don’t mean jack shit anymore when you can reach max level in less then a day and press 1 button and do 1 million+ damage with a single attack.

Video games are dead.”

“Profit is just a number on a spreadsheet. Who has space to house and the logistics to guard, transport, market, and sell 90 million tons of precious metal is not.”

“How did Germany go from suffering hyperinflation in attempt to pay WW1 reparations to being the top economic powerhouse while every other country in the world went through the period of history we know today as The Great Depression?”

“”Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”
“Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
“Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
“We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
Hitler himself is not a purely Germanic type. His dark hair betrays some alpine ancestor. For years he refused to be photographed. That was part of his strategy – to be known only to his friends so that, in the hour of crisis, he could appear here, there, and everywhere without detection. Today he could no longer pass unrecognised through the obscurest hamlet in Germany. His appearance contrasts strangely with the aggressiveness of his opinions. No milder mannered reformer ever scuttled ship of state or cut political throat.

“What,” I continued my cross-examination, “are the fundamental planks of your platform?”
“We believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.” “Mussolini,” I interjected, “said the same to me.” Hitler beamed.”

“Time has proven over and over that the politicians who calculate that intricately fail. Spontaneity is key. A lot of people have forgotten the 2000 debates. Gore was a debate champion, and his strategy was rational debate. W just went “lol you invented the internet, I guess you pretty smart”.”

“Remember: every society is three days (without food) from revolution.”

“Minecraft? It was the fucking chosen one. It could have proven that indie games with effort put into them can make a profit- that you CAN make great games with some love and care. And it WAS going that way- until the millions started rolling in.

Instead it just proved you can make millions so long as you build enough hype. And every shitheaded developer has now switched to that idea. Not just publishers- fucking DEVELOPERS. Indie or otherwise.

There’s no one you can truly trust anymore.”

“I suppose that the Bush family îs inspiring itself from the Habsburg family, where the ruling family rules a multiethnic state where they can play one group against the other while holding the grup on power. As was the case with the Habsburgs, it might be convenient for them, as the allegiance is for a ruling family and not for a specific ethnicity, meaning that they may expand their domain through marriage and.not through war. As the US will resemble Brazil more and more, they might succed în maintaining this new order.”

“Loyal, competent, powerful, and built for sex.”


“In the 1930s, [Robert Maynard Hutchins] had set out to remake the University of Chicago more or less in his image: He dropped the university’s football program and remade the curriculum, attempting to turn back to an emphasis on the traditional masterpieces of Western civilization. Hutchins considered these books to be the intellectual inheritance of the civilization and the core of the “permanent studies which every person who wishes to call himself educated should master […] he lead an attack on the newly minted deities of the academy, including vocationaliism, empiricism, and what he saw as anti-intellectualism masquearading as an emphasis on “experience.” Said Hutchins: “If we want to give our students experiences, we should go out of business. The place to get experiences is in life.”

“If you visualize the academic enterprise as a vast archeaological dig, with scholars chipping away at thte frontiers of knowledge, [the traditional] approach takes the student to an observation tower at the center, where he can see the vast sweep of the enterprise, the most important questions being asked, the places where progress has been made and where, on the contrary, the landscape is shrouded in mystery.

The ‘Core’ approach whisks the student directly up to [a] rock face, hands him a shovel and pickaxe, and tells him to start digging. “These are my tools.” says his specialist guide, “and this is what it’s like doing my job.””


“Bungie wanted to stop doing Halo games and start doing other things.
They were contractually obligated to continue with Halo, and the tried to keep going, but soon many of the people in the company left, tearing out the capacity of the company to be as good as it was.
So when the contract was gone, there was nothing left in Bungie to make good Halo games, and Microsoft knows this. So they passed it off onto technically competent, but creatively hobble people to continue it, because Halo was a brand far too rich to abandon just yet.
That’s why Halo’s dying. It’s parents are gone, and it’s foster parents are suited to have it as a child, and it’s uncle only cares for it so it can succeed through Halo.
Now Bungie a shell with a familiar name, but none of what made it good on the inside. All that’s left are the intern and junior staff, the higher staff now just yesmen, wagemakers and creatively bankrupt marketing men.”

“I want to pass on what I think is right. I’m fighting for the ability to do that.”

“I actually remember esports companies threatening this with the fighting game scene. How MLG tried hosting their tournaments on the same weekend as community-run majors like Final Round, but were just told to fuck off because the community protected itself. Now the big companies just sponsor their events instead and let the FGC grow organically.
With you guys, you gathered up the city, sold it to the devil and now it’s gone to hell and we wonder how.”

“Tocqueville foresaw an “immense tutelary power”—the modern state—which would degrade men rather than destroy their bodies. Over time, he feared, the state would take away citizens’ free will, their capacity to think and act, reducing them to “a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.””

“Multiculturalism is considered good for two reasons. 1 you wouldn’t wanna be racist, would ya? and 2. Chinese food is nice.
All the facts point to Multiculturalism being bad, yet it still has much support.
So how do you change peoples views. Well Muslims and Niggers are helping us do that.”

“Highschool teachers mistakenly think that they are entitled to vast amounts of money from the public and respect from their students. Moreover, being surrounded by teenagers for years has confused them into thinking that they are smarter than average when in reality they are barely able to outwit 15 year olds. On top o this, high-school teachers lie to themselves about the motives behind their own careers. They say it is “for the children” and use this lie as an excuse or moral self righteousness. In reality they took their jobs because of the easy money, low work load, and months of vacation time. If that weren’t enough, highschool teachers quickly become intoxicated with the power. It is the only authority they have ever had in life and it quickly leads to them becoming petty tyrants. So there you have it, highschool teachers are self righteous, pretentious, petty tyrants and entitlement whores with vastly inflated egos. Other than that, nothing is wrong with them.”

“>what you’ve written is purely speculative psychologisations of the motives of thousands of people you’ve never met
I won’t lose any sleep over this.”

“I’m going to wait until someone makes a comment saying how this was justified and Obama is still a great president and then I’m going to make it the cover photo, pin it to the top of the page, and tell every alt-right page I can find to share it to shame you for how completely fucking oblivious you are so the internet will never forget “That one guy who thought a dead solider should be charged for shooting back at a terrorist”

Go on. I’m waiting. I know one of you rainbow-flag filter toting boot lickers isn’t going to be able to hold back discharging your mental refuse on a public comments section.”

“Generation 8, the remake/remaster age”
“We’re close to completing the same progression movies went through. All we need now is for the bubble to burst.”
“Not quite friend, i’ve been seeing this and movies in the end ALWAYS had an “indie” scene to fall back, which was neither indie nor poor
The art house scene paid by rich people who really loved films saved years of creative drought from time to time in several countries
Vidya doesn’t have that scene because most of the fans are still too young to reach places of being rich as fuck to maintain a small niche group, there were some exceptions like Vin Diesel
The video game industry grew too fast when it reached mainstream, which topped in what we have today, and without the proper niche scene made, only the Japs have a consistent group of them
And see, rarely in Cinema a genre dies out, in Vidya it happens often”

“This rapidly democratizing society, as Tocqueville understood it, had a population devoted to “middling” values which wanted to amass, through hard work, vast fortunes. In Tocqueville’s mind, this explained why America was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth, while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar, and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money; many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in America, workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries.

So Americans have managed to wind up with the worst of all possible worlds. We’ve come to believe in the virtue of working hard, to believe the capitalist PR used to justify the enclosure movement and the reduction of independent peasants to wage slaves. Look at how hard people in the 1% or the 0.1% work. CEOs put in silly hours. So do hedgies and PE fund overlords. Now their well-paid subordinates may slog harder. However, their duties, like Machiavellian politics, hiring and firing, preparing for Important Meetings with Important People and Making Big Decisions, sure beat flipping burgers. But they don’t enjoy Keynes’ leisure either.

I submit the problem comes from our American version of capitalism. Paul Krugman a few years back took issue with how US pundits often demonized French economic performance. Krugman said it was simple: we preferred to consume houses. They preferred to consume vacations. By contrast, my impression is few really rich Americans are good at loafing (by contrast, in my one day in Monaco, it seemed that’s the only thing that that sort of international rich tax evader did). They seem to need to defend the legitimacy of their elite standing by Doing Stuff (which they often confuse with Doing Good).”

“Look at how workers are bereft of dignity. It used to be that only factory workers punched a time clock. Most of them were (at least in the post war era) protected by unions, and there was some logic in the regimentation (factories are large complex operations where everyone needs to work in a coordinated manner. Downtime is expensive. So having mechanisms to pressure the workers to respect the demands of the work environment can be justified from an enterprise survival standpoint.

By contrast, all sorts of petty humiliations are foisted upon mid and low level office and retail workers, many of which simply seem to be to reinforce the internal hierarchy and remind the employee he has little power. Cube farms. Regimentation of work hours for the convenience of the bosses (when for many jobs, significant portions of the work can be done autonomously). Week to week changes in schedules for businesses that don’t have big changes in hours and are not at survival risk (McDonalds, Walmart and other big box retailers). While upper white collar workers now are allowed more latitude (but in return for being expected to be on call for extended hours), middle management, admin, and retail workers are subject to vastly more intensive supervision and productivity benchmarking, moving them towards the standing of early garment workers who were paid on piecework.

So I’d argue that the “bullshit” comes from the devolving worker-employer social contract, and not from the work itself. I enjoyed having a paper route when I was a kid. People really did expect to get their newspapers by a certain time so delivering it conscientiously made a difference to them and the newspaper. I made enough money as an early telemarketer that I thought it was OK (as it was tolerable as opposed to terrible, but that was also because people back then answered the phone and most of the time were pleasant even if they made it clear they weren’t going to talk to you). But perhaps more important, those jobs are bullshit not simply because managers often treat the people who work in those jobs as labor fodder, but people like Graeber look down on them. People in those positions are treated as having no or little status.

By contrast, when I lived in Australia, all the people who worked at checkouts in grocery stores seemed pretty happy. That was confirmed by a buddy taking a buyout from her Wall Street firm and working at the cheese counter at a major department store for four months before moving to New Zealand. She really enjoyed the job, the not having to worry when she left work, talking to customers about cheese and food, and having simple tasks she could do well. And even though the pay was much lower, she still could cover all her living expenses and have some leisure/play money left over. I attribute that to Australia having a high minimum wage and being fabulously egalitarian (the clientele at my pub ranged from an pensioner who could only afford one beer a month, former drug addicts who had become social workers and data entry clerks to a nationally famous radio host and the CEO of one of the 150 biggest companies).

Similarly, on a recent thread, one commentor seemed almost stunned at the idea of having all the students clean a school, as they do in Japan. I imagine that some of the surprise was that cleaning is regarded as menial work here, and in America parents would likely squawk if their precious children were made to stand in for janitors. But the reader seemed to be taken by the idea that cleaning a school would convey to the students that when they get it dirty, they are making work for people, which might be them in six months. But there’s another message, that the community take care of itself, and no work is too lowly.”

“No I don’t love my work. I am constitutionally incapable of doing anything half way and there are way too many things that someone should debunk and I can’t even begin to get to them all. And am pissed off about the state of the world and how powerless we all seem to be. Do you think it’s pleasant reading every day about how the world is moving towards authoritarianism and neofeudalism and the bad guys keep winning? What I do is unrewarding psychologically, taxing physically, and it is not attractive financially. I suffer from low-grade case of PTSD between the horrible things that happen every day and how many people make demands on my time that I can’t even begin to deal with adequately.”

“>averages for common jobs like comic book inkers, concept artists or animators
They have the speed they do from doing so many drawings all the damn time. That’s how you get fast, but it’s not really a matter of speed as much as efficiency. Most people are slow because they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing and can’t plan in advance. Some become efficient at fixing their shit quickly, others at doing it again and again until they do it right the first time at a brisk pace.

Most people work pretty slowly and are only efficient at one or two things. It’s more a matter of how fast one can ink and paint as opposed to draft and draw as they tend to take longer, but someone who can’t realize the basic outlines of an idea on paper in under 2 minutes probably has very shaky fundamentals. Composition is another matter entirely.”

“>Most people are naturally cuckolds, especially 8chan’s /v/. They are 100% okay with getting fucked in the ass, so they wouldn’t jump ship.
This is the problem with 8chan – so long as a board isn’t completely unusable, retards will continue to populate it, even if better alternatives exist.
Hotwheel’s ideals about new boards replacing older, more poorly moderated ones doesn’t account for the nature of humans. They wont jump ship if things get bad, this is /v/ after all! They see this place as a home, and refuse to search for better alternatives even if things get bad, as we’ve seen in this thread.
While I’m happy that niche boards have popped up and built communities that otherwise wouldn’t exist, the site doesn’t work the way I hoped it would.”

“How good of a shot is the typical US serviceman?”

“Individual marksmanship has not been a focus of militaries for the better part of a century. To answer your question: not very.
But its about volume of fire and control of cones of fire. Not individual marksmanship.”

“So, automatic fire and intermediate calibers has killed marksmanship.”

It’s better to teach men other skills in combat than marksmanship. 5 dudes with 30 round mags of 5.56 can just spray at the general location of the enemy. It’s not like the old days where a full sized 8mm bolt gun limited your volume of fire.”

“Starting in WW2, soldiers decided it’s easier to replace ammunition than people, so if you thought you saw an enemy you emptied your mag into the general direction.”

Matchmaking in WoT is still broken as fuck. I meticulously recorded about 1400 of my matches manually, recording whether it was a win or loss, what tier my tank was in, its weighted expected matchmaking based on official WG data, and its actual matchmaking.
Then I found that most tanks had matchmaking that on average was a full tier higher than stated, except for Soviet tanks which only had 0.5 tiers higher than stated. It’s because the MM rates and decision engine are all calibrated around the Russian servers, which are notorious for being packed with stupidly patriotic shitters and using nothing but Soviet tanks, lose in the first two minutes of a match, and play another match within 5 minutes.

“Modelled as a vector: Experience informs starting point, knowledge informs direction, contemplation informs magnitude.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s