Who Said It: Danny Vinyard in ‘American History X’ or Trump in 2016

November 12, 2019 6 comments

One of my critiques of HRC’s 2016 presidential campaign was that her ivy-league “credentialed” advisers and consultants focused on Trump using “bad words” and his “lack of respectability” as opposed to why his ideas were problematic. I am sure MikeCA is going to chime in and try to tell us that this was not the case. However, even a neoliberal rag such as Vox admitted otherwise. With that in mind, have a look at this clip from ‘American History X’ 1998, specifically the first two and half minutes. Doesn’t his rhetoric remind you of Trump?

Now tell me something.. did any of the ivy-league “credentialed” morons working for HRC ever run an ad campaign which juxtaposed clips from such movies with Trump’s rhetoric? Also, there is no shortage of well-known movies and TV shows conatining neo-Nazi characters expressing similar beliefs. I would have approved a series of wall-to-wall ads containing clips from Hitler speeches juxtaposed with Trump expressing similar sentiments. But the “credentialed” dumbfucks were busy running ads showing children listening to Trump using “bad words” in some speeches and surreptitiously recorded conversations. Way to go.. losers!

What do you think? Comments?

Liberals Have, Also, Irreversibly Lost the War for Ideological Supremacy

November 7, 2019 13 comments

Some readers might have noticed that one commentator on this blog likes to dutifully regurgitate establishment democrat talking points. According to him, anybody who does not agree with the “official version of events” is part of some Russian disinformation campaign or stupid. While I started writing this post to comment on that mindset, it quickly became obvious that it was just one manifestation of a much bigger problem. So let me help you connect the dots by highlighting other manifestations of the same problem. Have you noticed that, within the past 5-10 years, liberals (rather than CONservatives) have become obsessed with censoring anyone with whom they disagree. Ever wonder why that change occurred and why within that particular timespan?

How did we reach the point where LIEbrals, rather than dumbfuck CONservatives, are obsessed with performing overt and fake displays of public morality. Why did LIEbrals become the thin-skinned snowflakes they used to justifiably accuse Conservatives of being. Why are LIEbrals obsessing over “ideological purity” like the CONservatives they used to mock? To understand how this change occurred, we have to first understand why CONservatives were once obsessed with censorship, ideological purity and displays of public morality. The short version is the supporters of dying ideologies will always try to delay the inevitable end through appeals to censorship, increasingly ridiculous displays of ideological fidelity and obsession with purity.

CONservatism entered its terminal phase sometime in the mid 1980s and has been effectively dead since 2006-2008. While there are many reasons for its demise, most come down to some version of the ideology failing to provide its believers and potential recruits what they wanted. In other words, CONservatism failed once it became obvious that the ideology was fundamentally fraudulent and unable to address the real needs for majority of its followers. So why is LIEbralism also failing and why is the speed so much higher than for CONservatism? To better understand this peculiar fact, we have to first talk about what both ideologies are really about. Yes.. neither ideology is what its ardent supporters claim them to be.

The thing is.. CONservatism in the west after WW1 was never about retaining traditional mores and worldviews. It was a logical framework, aka scam, to justify the power of rich people and corporations over everybody else. CONservatives were never interested in preserving traditions or guaranteeing socio-economic stability. Those were just buzzwords they invoked for conning, often willingly, stupid losers with delusions of becoming filthy rich. That is why, among western countries, modern CONservatism was strongest in post-WW2 USA. CONservative support of social issues such as racial apartheid, prayers in schools, anti-abortion stances etc was therefore always about appealing to white trash stupid enough to care about such useless bullshit.

While the last COnservative resurgence (during 1980s) in the west died out in Europe by the late 1990s, it persisted in North America for a few years longer. CONservatism in this country was publicly discredited largely due to a series of spectacular and costly failures during and by the Bush43 administration- from the failed occupation of Iraq to Global Financial Crisis of 2008. But what about the recent resurgence of right-wing parties across Europe- some might wonder. See.. the thing is, right-wing populism and proto-fascism is not CONservatism, even though there is a small degree of ideological overlap. Now let us get back to how CONservatives handled their slow-motion demise during the late 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.

Some of you might be old enough to remember that, during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a renewed attempt to ban pornography, “violent” video games and push for “traditional” values. They also did other tone-deaf and stupid stuff such as ignore the HIV crisis, tried to to stop the movement for gay rights and censor network TV when everyone was buying satellite TV dishes. By then, all the genies they feared were already out of their metaphorical bottles. CONservatism was increasingly seen as the ideology of stupid, old and out-of-touch losers. It did not help that modern LIEbralism, aka NeoLIEberalism, was now the default ideological choice of rich assholes who wanted to appear “hip”. The many public failures of Bush43 presidency were the final nails in the coffin of CONservatism. That is why Trump was able to defeat every last establishment CONservative in the 2016 republican primary, and with ease.

But what does any of this have to do with the ongoing failure of LIEbralism? As it turns out, a whole fucking lot! The thing is.. LIEbralism, was never about opposing CONservatism or doing any of the other things it pretended to care about. LIEbralism, at it core is the ideological sibling of CONservatism, albeit one that tries to portray itself as more the enlightened among the two. That is why LIEbralism is perfectly fine with everything problematic about CONservatism, except the parts that make them look unenlightened. That is why LIEbrals and corporations will support LGBTQ parades while simultaneously paying their employees starvation wages and denying them healthcare. Similarly LIEbrals love to masturbate to the sound of “woke” labels such as “Latinx” rather than treat real Hispanic people as equal human beings.

This is also why LIEbrals love to celebrate a deeply problematic Neo-LIEbral such as Obama even though he started five more wars in Africa and a couple more in middle-east, was responsible for millions of Hispanics to be deported and millions of black people losing their homes in aftermath of housing bubble. But.. but.. didn’t he pose for photos with a few old black women and children in the Oval Office and give empty inspirational-sounding speeches? See.. LIEbrals differentiate themselves from CONservatives by where they studied, what they wear and eat, how they speak and other superficial stuff. They so because, in every aspect which matters, they are no different from CONservatives. The former just try to be better at scamming people than the latter.

So why, then, did this group who appeared to have prevailed over CONservatives by the mid 2000s get so thin-skinned about “mean people” and “dissenters” so quickly after their supposed victory? Some of you might believe that this had something to do with being the only game in town. The realty is much more complex. As mentioned earlier, LIEbrals and CONservatives are simply two faces of the same group of people and all those “culture wars” were largely for the purposes of distraction and entertainment for the masses. But why did this fake show last for multiple decades? Well.. it comes down to two main reasons. Firstly, for the first 3-4 decades after WW2 the west was the most affluent part of the world and most people who live in societies that seem to be doing OK don’t ask inconvenient questions.

The second reason follows from the first. Societies experiencing continuously rising standards of living and expectations tend to focus on superficial issues and controversies while simultaneously ignoring deeper and more systemic challenges. There is a reason that the post-WW2 american society was dominated by “culture wars” rather than anything deeper such as changing the shitty underlying system. The show went until the combined effects of deindustrialization, neoliberalism and financialization of the economy and society at could no longer be papered over or ignored. But why would that cause the public image of LIEbralism and trust in its institutions to implode much faster than CONservatism?

Well.. it comes down to an undesired, but predictable, result of the collapse of CONservatism. Long story short, after its public collapse in 2006-2008, LIEbralism was the only game left in town. Now LIEbrals could no longer blame their inability to do the ‘right thing’ on resistance from CONservatives. Unfortunately this was also the time when the post-WW2 economic western economic ‘miracle’ started to implode in a very public manner. Turns out that LIEbrals has no real solutions to problems of their own creation other than imposing more austerity, pushing for fiscal CONservatism, spouting bullshit about lifelong education and basically anything other than tackle the problems plaguing most people in their countries. There is a reason why right-wing populist leaders and movements exploded in popularity across western countries after 2010.

The LIEbral reaction to these developments has been highly counterproductive, to say the least. For starters, they doubled and tripled down on empty bullshit such as identity and racial politics, “environmentalism” and celebrity culture aka stuff most people do not even pretend to care about. But what they did next was especially dumb, even by their standards. See.. these idiots had the bright idea that lecturing and trying to shame people into not talking about their real problems was a winner. And they tried really hard to pull the shit off by using their domination of certain institutions to amplify their message, which had the unfortunate (but also predictable) effect of deep-sixing any residual public trust and credibility. The election of Trump in 2016 was the final straw and seems to have broken their mind.

It seems that LIEbrals now firmly believe that nothing short of overt censorship, trying to stifle the speech of their opponents and pretty much anything other than admitting that their ideology was also a scam is the way “forward”. They do not want to believe that the previous state of affairs is dead, discredited and cannot be restored. Since this post is already a bit over 1500 words, this is a good time to wrap it up. Will likely post a followup based on reader comments.

What do you think? Comments?

George Carlin on Environmentalism and Anodyne Corporate Language

November 2, 2019 3 comments

Here are two interesting YT clips by the well-known, and now deceased comedian, George Carlin. While the video quality is pretty mediocre by current standards, the material is extremely good. In the first one he talks about how environmentalism is just a contemporary manifestation of anthropocentric delusions, aka humans wanting to believe that the world exists for them and having some outsize influence on it. In the second one, he goes after how anodyne corporate language and lies has permeated all walks of life in USA.

Clip # 1

Clip # 2

What do you think? Comments?

The Thylacine aka Tasmanian Tiger is Probably Still Around in Tasmania

October 31, 2019 7 comments

Here is another post that I have wanted to write for almost three years, but somehow never got around to completing.. until now. I am sure that some of you have heard about the Thylacine aka Tasmanian Tiger, most likely in the context of whether it could be brought back through the use of cloning or it is truly extinct. So what is the deal with this allegedly extinct animal and why do more than a few people believe it is still around. The real reason why we are talking about this creature in the first place has a lot to do with mammalian evolution during the Cenozoic and plate tectonics and the final breakup of the remnants of Gondwana about 30-40 million years ago.

The thing is.. after the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs at the end of Cretaceous, there survivors (especially on land) were on the smaller side. As some of you might know, the two main surviving branches of mammals after that event were the Placentals and Marsupials. Today, the former dominate most ecosystems on earth- but things were not always so lopsided. For reasons that are speculative and beyond the scope of this post, the three southernmost continents (Antarctica, Australia, South America) and what is today New Zealand were dominated by birds, marsupials, amphibians and some rather usual reptiles until they either came in contact with other continents or became too cold to support most animal and plant life.

Long story short.. for many millions of years after its final separation from Antarctica and perhaps even before that event, the largest land animals in Australia were marsupials, birds, crocodiles and monitor lizards. Marsupials were especially versatile and evolved into creatures that occupied familiar ecological niches. To put it another way, Australia used to have marsupial versions of common placental mammals such as anteaters, moles, rabbits, squirrels, deer, rhinos, pigs and big cats. While usually not as large or diverse as their placental counterparts, these creatures nonetheless managed to hang around for tens of millions of years- with many becoming extinct only in the past 10-40 thousand years or less.

The Thylacine, despite its name, is best understood as the marsupial equivalent of a small wolf or coyote. Fossil evidence suggests that it was once found in Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania- because these three entities are on the same continental plates and connected by land bridges during geological periods characterized by lower sea levels. While it was almost extinct on the Australian mainland by the time it was colonized by the British in the mid-1800s (competition from dingos?), a reasonably decent sized population persisted in Tasmania- which has been a separate island since the end of last ice age. It would have been still flourishing on that island if not for stupid short-sighted white colonial farmers who saw this creature as a pest and hunted it to alleged extinction. But why use the words “alleged extinction” instead of “extinction”.

Because there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it did not become extinct. Officially, the last Thylacine in captivity died on 7 September 1936. There have been very credible sightings of this species in 1938 (shot in a remote area), 1957 (spotted from air) and 1961 (killed in another remote area). While there are no photographs of these sightings, the fact that those involved came from an era when people had seen Thylacines in the flesh make misidentification rather unlikely. Now let us move on to sightings of this animal in the post-1961 era. Before we go any further, let us make an important distinction between post-1961 sightings based on location.

All recent Thylacine sightings can be divided into two categories based on location. One set are concentrated in a remote coastal part of South-West Australian mainland and yes.. early colonists in the mid 1800s had reported very occasional encounters with these creatures. My point is that the idea of a few small populations of that species surviving in remote ares of the mainland is not as implausible as one might initially assume. Having said that, the case for them being around in Tasmania is far stronger. But why would I think so?

Tasmania is a reasonably large island (almost as large as Sri Lanka, Hispaniola or Hokkaido) and most of it is very sparsely populated. Over 70% of 530-540k people on that island live in five metropolitan areas with two accounting for over 50%. Which is another way of saying many parts of the island are pretty wild and seldom visited by human beings. You might have also noticed that a decent percentage of the island is mountainous/ hilly and not close to large population centers. Not to mention that 20% of that island is a national park containing some of least disturbed parts of that island. It is therefore not beyond the realms of possibility for small populations of a shy coyote-sized animal which is especially wary of humans to remain largely hidden from them. Remember.. the Thylacine was never known for being especially fecund or interested in approaching human beings. So ya, it is possible.

It is also noteworthy that post-1961 locations of alleged Thylacine sightings tend to cluster in certain areas of that island, with a rather large percentage occurring in or near the foothills in remote parts of that island- which is about where you might expect such a reclusive species to come across humans. To summarize, it is likely that small isolated populations of the Thylacine are still around in Tasmania. This conclusion is based on number of converging factors such as the number and geographical distribution of sightings, relatively small size and reclusive nature of animal, large amount of almost uninhabited area with enough food and moderate to heavy forest cover for hiding as well as the hilly terrain in interior of Tasmania.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Hollywood and the Trump Derangement Syndrome

October 27, 2019 15 comments

One of the more unusual features of Trump’s presidency has been the large amount of hate it has elicited from Hollywood “celebrities”. Which is odd because, prior to running for president, Trump was well-liked by the same people who now make it a point to constantly proclaim their dislike and disdain for him. So how does a guy who was always lecherous, willing to scam others, with a seriously racist worldview and numerous other character flaws go from just another Hollywood-friendly “celebrity” to an icon of everything that is wrong with this country? Now, I am sure that some of you might say that his many flaws became relevant only after winning the 2016 election and becoming president. But is that really the case?

Think about it! Almost every single character flaw which is supposed to make Trump unsuitable for the presidency would also make him a shitty human being that others would not like to hang out with. For starters, take his well-known obsession with young women, teenage girls and his eldest daughter. As some of you might know, it was widely known that he a bit rapey, unusually interested in beauty pageants and seriously obsessed with his older daughter. However none of these facts were disqualifying to the numerous Hollywood “celebrities” who hung around him during those decades. Which brings us to the question as to why a guy who is now portrayed as a “sexual predator” was once an integral part of the celebrity circuit. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Or take his well-known history of being involved in multiple failed business and likely connections with mafia in NJ. Was any of this a secret? Did any of this ever have an adverse effect on his acceptance by the Hollywood “celebrity” circuit in the past? Did they stop hanging out with him because he stiffed many small business who had done work for him? Did his rumored connections with the mafia in NJ make him a pariah among Hollywood “celebrities”? Moving on to his history of casual racism and race-colored worldviews.. Did any of the many “woke celebrities” who now condemn his racism on an almost daily basis ever stop associating with him because of his views and actions before 2016? And let us be clear, his main business interests had the subject of investigation and prosecution by the government for racist practices since the 1970s.

My point is that none of these “woke celebrities”, who now criticize Trump at every turn, cared that he was a racist lecher with a massively bloated ego before 2016. But why not? Why didn’t his old and well-known character flaws become an issue until his election on Nov 8, 2016? To understand what I am getting at, let us compare him to the two other previous presidents, namely Obama44 and Bush43. As I have written about in previous posts, the Obama presidency was a disaster for the democratic party and tens of millions in this country. One could even make the claim that popular dissatisfaction with the Obama presidency was an important reason behind the rise of somebody such as Trump. And yet, the Hollywood “celebrity” circuit and discredited lamestream media treat Obama as if he was the best president ever.

So why does an ex-president whose greatest claim to fame is that he did not fuck it up as bad as his predecessor (Bush43) become the establishment’s unquestioned darling? A major clue to this apparent paradox can be found in the recent attempts by elites to rehabilitate the image of Bush43. As some might remember, Bush43 was the single most disastrous president in living memory. Not only did he start the last two major military conflicts which USA lost, but his administration presided over a number of other shitshows such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Housing Bubble and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. So why did Bush43 get only a fraction of the hate from Hollywood “celebrities” that the orange troll gets on a weekly basis?

The more cynical of you might attribute this to the relative absence of social media platforms during the Bush43 presidency. While the lack of smartphones and relative newness of Twitter, FakeBook etc did reduce the amount of dissenting voices during that era, there were two far bigger factors which kept “celebrities” from criticizing Bush43 to anywhere near the levels they do for Trump. Firstly, Bush43 was part of the establishment- even if the credibility of that entity was coming apart in front of everyone. As a consequence of that, the majority of criticism about his administration came from people who were not part of the establishment- either centrally or peripherally. The thing is.. majority of Hollywood “celebrities” see themselves as part of the establishment- if only in their minds.

In their eyes, Trump’s real crime is that he is not part of the establishment. Yes.. you heard that right. They express their dislike for the orange troll, not because he is an incompetent, lecherous and cruel loser or a delusional blowhard- but because he is not part of the right crowd (as they see it). Bush43’s actions resulted in the loss of many hundreds thousands lives, trillions of dollars and ushered the beginning of end for USA as a superpower. By those lofty standards, Trump is a bumbling doofus who hasn’t been able to cause a fraction of the damage caused by the Bush43 presidency. But Bush43, unlike Trump, was part of the right crowd.

An even bigger reason for why Hollywood “celebrities” dump on Trump has to do with the nature of north american society. The thing is.. many of you believe that societies like DPRK and China are the most conformist societies in existence today. However having met and interacted with a number of people from all over the world, I can say without a shadow of doubt that USA is by far the most conformist society on earth today. It is of course true that people in this country spend tons of money and expend much effort to pretend they are individualistic- and then go about showing it in a highly conformist manner. As I mentioned in an old post, a society usually lacks whatever quality, resource or attribute it portray itself to be full of.

The entertainment sector, aka Hollywood etc, is especially full of unimaginative conformists who spend a lot of time and resources pretending they are individualistic free-spirits. However when they hear dog-whistles from the few who have tons of money and power, almost everybody falls in line. That is why dissing Trump has become a competitive sport among Hollywood “celebrities”. Furthermore, we have reached a stage where simulacra have become more important than reality for many people in this country- at least in the short term. Everybody in that sector seems to be displaying fashionable, curated and attention-grabbing versions of themselves. And who can fault them for doing so in a world where only the best fake displays of opinions, behavior and outrage will ensure their continued fame, visibility and relevance.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Oct 26, 2019

October 26, 2019 1 comment

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

Spread Amateur Selfies: Oct 19, 2019 – Spread amateur cuties taking selfies.

Busty Amateur Selfies: Oct 20, 2019 – Busty amateur cuties taking selfies.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

More Recent Articles by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone and Substack

October 22, 2019 13 comments

About a month ago, I posted an article with links to recent articles by well-known journalist, Matt Taibbi. Here are a couple more and most readers know which commentator they are aimed at..

Everyone Is a Russian Asset

Everyone is foreign scum these days. Democrats spent three years trying to prove Donald Trump is a Russian pawn. Mitch McConnell is “Moscow Mitch.” Third party candidates are a Russian plot. The Bernie Sanders movement is not just a wasteland of racist and misogynist “Bros,” but — according to intelligence agencies and mainstream pundits alike — the beneficiary of an ambitious Russian plot to “stoke the divide” within the Democratic Party. The Joe Rogan independents attracted to the mild antiwar message of Tulsi Gabbard are likewise traitors and dupes for the Kremlin. If you’re keeping score, that’s pretty much the whole spectrum of American political thought, excepting MSNBC Democrats. What a coincidence!

The #Resistance has come up with all sorts of words for such fifth-columnists and deviationists: they are “false-balancers” or “false equivalencers,” “neo-Naderites,” “purity-testers,” “both-sidesists,” “whataboutists,” “horseshoe theorists,” “Russia skeptics” or “Russia denialists,” and “anti-anti-Trumpers.” Such heretics are all ultimately seen as being on “team Putin.” This witch-hunting insanity isn’t just dangerous, it’s a massive breach from reality. Trump’s campaign was a clown show. He had almost no institutional backing. His “ground game” was nonexistent: his “campaign” was a TV program based almost wholly around unscripted media appearances. Trump raised just over half the $1.2 billion Hillary pulled in (making him the first presidential candidate dating back to 1976 to win with a funds deficit). He didn’t prepare a victory speech, for the perfectly logical reason that he never expected to win.

We’re in a permanent coup

This latest incident, set against the impeachment mania and the reportedly “expanding” Russiagate investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham, accelerates our timeline to chaos. We are speeding toward a situation when someone in one of these camps refuses to obey a major decree, arrest order, or court decision, at which point Americans will get to experience the joys of their political futures being decided by phone calls to generals and police chiefs. My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.

We’re now in that same paradigm in America. CNN has hired nearly a dozen former intelligence or counterintelligence officials as analysts in the last few years. Their big get was former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, but they also now have former deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe, former FBI counsel James Baker, and multiple former CIA, NSA, and NSC officials. Meanwhile, former CIA director John Brennan has an MSNBC/NBC gig, as does former CIA and DOD chief of staff Jeremy Bash, and several other ex-spooks. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, who doubles as the CEO of one of America’s largest intelligence contractors. This odious situation is similar to 2003-2004, when cable networks were tossing contributor deals to every ex-general and ex-spook they could find while they were reporting on the Iraq invasion. At one point, FAIR.org found that 52 percent of the sources in network newscasts were current or former government officials.

What do you think? Comments?