Funny Music Video from 2014: Literally I Can’t (Shut The Fuck Up)

July 9, 2020 2 comments

A few days ago, while going down another YouTube hole late at night, I came across a catchy and funny music video which attracted the ire of SJWs and “feminists” when released in 2014. Yes, we are talking about “Literally I Can’t” by Play-N-Skillz, featuring Redfoo, Lil Jon, and Enertia McFly. I am guessing that at a few of you might remember the manufactured controversy surrounding its release. If you don’t, watch it and tell me what you think about it.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: LOL, Music Video, YouTube

On the Necessity of Being a Multi-Millionaire under Late Capitalism: 1

July 5, 2020 25 comments

A few years ago, I wrote about how the Simpsons show was a marker for demise of middle-class in USA. The point I made in that post was that the Simpson family’s lifestyle, as depicted in that show, was not only possible, but considered normal as late as the early 1990s- when that show debuted. However, today the idea of a guy who barely completed high school having a stable job which pays enough to support a wife and three kids, own a modest house along with a couple of second-hand cars would be considered fantasy. So what happened between the early 1990s and today? How did we go from a point where a stable middle-class existence was the unquestioned norm in western countries to one where most people are heavily indebted precariats with zero chance of a better life in less than three decades- but especially in the anglosphere.

To better understand what I am talking about, let me tell you a little story. See.. there are two reasons why I took the educational trajectory which I ended up taking. Firstly, I liked my area of study and was very good at it. However, there was a second reason- employment in that area provided a guaranteed stable upper-middle class lifestyle for many decades (starting from end of WW2 to the mid-2000s). Even academics in that area could expect a very nice and stable upper-middle class, albeit a bit less well compensated than those in industry. For example, one of my academic mentors (born in 1945 or 1946) became a tenured professor by 30, got married, had three kids, was able to buy a nice house and expand it, buy a second vacation home, decent cars etc, take long vacations, a few sabbaticals, got a steady stream of OK grants and ultimately retired with a decent guaranteed pension.

The important thing is that he was able to all of that with an income equivalent to somewhere between 70-120k/yr adjusted for current levels of purchasing power. Sure, his wife worked too for some years, but she made probably 40% of what he made even in the best years. In other words, it was possible to enjoy a very nice and stable upper-middle class lifestyle for somewhere between 100-150k/yr even if you had three children who had to be put through university. Sure, it helped that the city in question was not coastal California or NYC level expensive. But still.. my point stands, and he was not the only one. As late as end of 1990s and early 2000s, this lifestyle was considered normal for someone in academia- at least in the parts where I lived. Industry paid better, and starting salaries of 80-90k after a PhD were fairly common even in late 1990s. A good number of them ended up making the equivalent of somewhere between 120-150k for most of their careers. Did I mention that the jobs were far more stable then?

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is as follows: it was perfectly possible for a couple making about 200k/year with one or both in pharma or allied sectors to live a very comfortable and nice lifestyle in certain places in NE USA (MA, NJ, non-NYC NY) or west coast (Bay Area, San Diego, Seattle). Also, these jobs came with excellent healthcare packages and defined-benefit pensions. Of course, this has not been the case since 2009- but that is another story. Now ask yourself a simple question, how was the pharma sector capable of providing such nice working conditions for many decades and why did this start coming to an end by middle of early 2000s? It is not as if pharma suddenly became a far less profitable industry, did it? So why did that sector change its business model after decades of it working nicely, starting in the 1990s. Yes.. the rot began a decade or so before things went to shit.

To understand what went wrong in that sector and many others all over the west, you have to begin by asking a simple question- who are corporations run for and by whom. Well.. as it turns out, for many decades after end of WW2, corporations in the west were run to achieve two ends- personal profit for owners of capital AND well-compensated stable employment for the rest. The idea was that a high standard of living would keep people from getting interested in more ‘radical’ ideologies such as socialism and even full-blown communism. But once state communism fell in Eastern Europe by 1989, the west (especially anglosphere) had no reason to balance the interests of capital AND employees. It is therefore not surprising that neoliberalism, which started in the late 1970s, did not really take off until 1991. Yes.. that is why a lot of the deregulation of western economies started after 1991. But what is neoliberalism anyway?

Well.. if I had to define neoliberalism, here is how I would do it. Neoliberalism is an ideology that pretends to profess belief in “free markets”, “free trade” and other totems of classical liberalism such as individualism while transferring power and money from elected government to unelected corporations using excuses based in the bullshit lies of pliant economists and other so-called “social scientists”. For examples, government deficits and ‘printing money’ are very bad if they are used to fund the needs of average people but very smart and correct if they are used to make corporations and a few people very rich. Here is another example- according to this ideology, allowing monopolies and oligopolies to exist is a great idea as long as you can pretend to show that they don’t overcharge customers. Here are a few more examples..

Pretending to care about black lives and diversity is the right thing to do, even if you are actively involved in trying to suppress wages, steal wages and otherwise screw your employees- many of who might be black and non-white. There is a reason why corporations are so enthusiastic about supporting “woke” activism. It is all about maintaining a fake image that nobody but their own inner circle believe in- not unlike Nazis pretending that they were committing ethnic genocide to make the world ‘a better place’ or Zionists pretending that they are on a civilizing mission in the Middle-East. Same crap, different bottle- rinse and repeat. As I have said many times, the difference between LIEbralism and CONservatism is that the former are more vain about their public image, while the later are clueless.

Anyway.. let us get back to the topic at hand, specifically the part about how it is necessary to be a multi-millionaire to enjoy living under late capitalism aka financialism aka Neoliberalism. A few months ago, I decided to calculate the amount of income and wealth necessary for somebody in 2020 to live like an OK paid professor in 2000- in the same city. After some calculations I arrived at an interesting range of numbers. See.. to do everything he did and live with same margin of comfort, a person would require around 300k. But wait.. some of you might say, haven’t you accounted for inflation. Yes, I have and that is why I listed his pay range as 70-120k/yr (over career) adjusted to current levels of purchasing power. And you know something else, that is very close to the current pay range for positions he occupied in that university over his career.

To make another long story short, he simply could not have enjoyed the lifestyle he did had he joined the same university 25 years after he did (so, in the late 1990s) or today. And this is true not just for him and other academics but for most people in pharma, biotech, law and even programming. While Google and FB reputedly pay 200-250k for some of new hires in the Bay Area, I would like to ask you to have a look at living costs in said area. Try finding a modest but decent house within a 30 minute drive of workplace that is less than a million. Have a look at the costs of houses in areas with “good school districts” (an insanity most peculiar to USA). Calculate the costs of sending kids to university even if you get a few scholarships.

And we are not even getting into issues such as age discrimination, poor job AND career security, risk of divorce leading to financial ruin etc. It is so bad that only types of professions currently make enough money to live a secure upper-middle class lifestyle as it existed twenty years ago- medical practitioners and established lawyers. I am sure that some silly valley fuckwit will jump in now and say something about “learning to code” or some other inane bullshit about getting the right credentials. But it doesn’t matter anymore. We have already reached a stage where entire professions from academia, scientists, engineers, accountants, mid-level managers and many many more have gone down from solidly upper-middle class vocations to working class.

And they are the “lucky” ones since professions that once used to solidly middle-class such as assembly line workers, retail staff, construction workers etc have gone from middle and working class to precariat, while those that were working class such as delivery drivers, truckers, hotel and restaurant workers etc have become the working poor. It is no wonder that more than half the people are a couple of paychecks away from irreversible financial ruin. In the next part, I will go further into how financialism aka neoliberalism destroyed affordable housing, healthcare, education and a whole lot more while boomers were cheering for deregulation in 1990s. You will also see more examples of how being a multi-millionaire is a necessity under late capitalism.

What do you think? Comments?

Case Fatality Rates for COVID-19 are Now Decreasing Across the World

July 3, 2020 8 comments

Since I am feeling a bit lazy today, here is a quick post that is nonetheless quite interesting and topical. Many of you have might have heard about the recent resurgence of COVID-19 cases in USA- especially on the lying corporate media. Well.. I noticed a trend too, and not just in USA. Have a look at the first figure and see if you can spot an interesting change in the trends for positive cases vs ICU admissions vs deaths due to COVID-19 in Sweden during past month. In case you can’t see the obvious, let me spell it out..

While Sweden has experienced a large increase in number of people testing positive for COVID-19, this increase has not translated into an increase in people admitted to ICU with COVID-19 or people dying from it. In fact the number of people dying from COVID-19 has gone down a lot in the past month despite a large increase in number of diagnosed cases, to say nothing about undiagnosed cases. This is even more obvious when you compare those trends and figures to what was happening 2-3 months ago.

Clearly, something big has changed. Perhaps we are testing for it more widely, the median age of cases is lower, maybe our symptomatic treatment regimes have gotten better or the virus have mutated into a less lethal version. It could also be a combination. But whichever way you look at it, the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) for COVID-19 has dropped considerably over past month in that country. And yes.. I did factor in the 1-2 week lag between diagnosis and adverse outcomes.

Moving on to this country, we see a similar trend. While there has been a huge spike in number of people diagnosed with COVID-19 over past few weeks, number of people admitted to hospital (most are not in ICUs) has increased very modestly while number of deaths keep on declining. Once again, a number of things might have changed- lower median age of cases, better medical management, newer virus strains being less lethal etc. But once again, it is hard to ignore that the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) has COVID-19 has gone down considerably in past few months.

Of course, it always possible that the real Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for COVID-19 was always much lower than what discredited institutions such as CDC and FDA were pretending.

BTW, Case Fatality Rate (CFR) = percentage of people who die due to diagnosed cases of an infection while Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = percentage who die in all people with that infection- both clinical and subclinical. IFR rates are often calculated after CFR rates as they are based on retrospective analysis of samples and data.

What do you think? Comments?

Do Democrats Have a Contingency Plan if Trump Cancels 2020 Election?

June 26, 2020 16 comments

As many of you know, I have a tendency to think about scenarios which initially appear unlikely but often come to pass later. Today, I am going to talk about the possibility of Trump cancelling the 2020 election or otherwise rigging it in a very blatant manner. I also have a feeling that our resident partisan democrat aka MikeCA is going to have something to say about this in comment section. FYI- I first explicitly considered this possibility in Mid-April but have kept quiet about it until now because, unlike corporate media presstitues, I prefer to make speculations which are solidly grounded in reality rather than wild fantasy.

So here are a few, and not mutually exclusive, scenarios in which Trump either cancels the 2010 election on blatantly rigs it..

1] Trump cancelling the 2020 election is the most dramatic scenario. While anything is possible in 2020, I would consider this to be the least likely one. For starters, Trump is too full of himself and stupid to be any good at subverting democratic processes, a fact that MikeCA still hasn’t grasped. But if he were to do it, this is how he would do it.. Imagine a second or third wave of COVID-19 and Influenza in the fall causes another round of shutdowns. A combination of massive increase in unemployment rates and stingy financial assistance by government forments widespread social unrest. BLM type protests intensify into street battles all across the country between leftists and right-wingers leading to many people start expressing concerns about their safety on election day. And yes.. everything I have mentioned here could occur by late-September.

Under these circumstances, Trump could make a plausible case that the 2020 election has to be postponed for a few months. Some of you might mumble something about the constitution, but face it.. if the situation mentioned above came to pass it would be very hard to make the counter case- namely that free and fair ejection can be held on “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November” or “the first Tuesday after November 1”. While democrats have demonstrated that they can organize a million-woman ‘pussy hat’ march, they have also shown themselves to be incapable (or unwilling) to wield any real power. In other words, Trump has seen them repeatedly fold like a cheap suit under the slightest pressure and his supporters have guns while LIEbrals don’t. So.. ya, he could get away with it.

2] A second possibility is that Trump and the republicans could use such a scenario to truncate the electoral process. This one is much more likely because republicans have already shown themselves to be capable of doing it on smaller scale. I am sure some of you might have heard about the various shenanigans being pulled by Republicans in southern states after key parts of the voting rights acts were invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2013. You might also be aware of attempts to suppress votes by requiring complex ID requirements in Wisconsin, a couple other mid-western States (and also Texas?). There is also the issue of republicans legislating to reduce the number of days and places for early voting, challenging mail-in ballots and a host of other “legalistic tricks” to suppress the vote. It is perfectly rational to assume that these tactics will go into overdrive and reach unprecedented levels during the 2020 election.

I could write a lot more on this particular sub-topic, but I do not want to bore you and lets be realistic- this is almost certain to occur. Keep you eye on how states handle the issue of mail-in ballots accessibility subsequent to the COVID-19 crisis and the almost inevitable and prolonged legal challenges. So, let us move on to the 3rd scenario- which is a sequel to the 2nd one.

3] Trump could contest the electoral results after the election is over. If more than the usual number of people vote by mail-in ballots, it is inevitable that any concrete results (especially in battleground states) could take at least 2-3 weeks to be finalized with any degree of confidence. Meanwhile Trump could declare victory on election night or the day after and create a popular narrative that he had won the electoral college. MikeCA might say.. but, 50% of country won’t believe him. My response is the other 50% will, and that is the problem. The closest we came to such a scenario was in 2000, where Al Gore won popular vote and almost certainly the electoral college but was unable to find the popular support to force his case. MikeCA might say that the Supreme Court stole the election. Here is my reply.. if there were even a hundred thousand people burning down parts of DC in support of Al Gore, the Supreme Court would have chosen differently- if only to ensure their own safety.

The thing is.. given the number of CONservative judges appointed by Trump since assuming office, it might be an even harder task to litigate this matter in a speedy and satisfactory manner. We then end up in a nightmare scenario where Trump wins the electoral college by initial vote count (first 2-3 days), declares victory, subsequent counting of mail-in ballots show a Biden win leading to Trump and republicans contesting validity of mail-in ballots at various levels. This leads to prolonged litigation and fiascoes that make the ‘hanging chad’ controversy of 2000 seem almost quaint by comparison. Then Trump asks his supporters to demonstrate in Washington DC and other cities across country, causing clashes and riots with antifa types, leading to even more civil unrest- especially if real unemployment rates remain above 20-25% at that time. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out whoever emerges from his confrontation will not be seen as legitimate by one half of the country. It will be an epic shitshow to round up an epic year.

So here is my question to MikeCA and other comfortable coastal partisan democrats- Do you, or your party, for have a feasible contingency plan (or two) to prevent or mitigate these scenarios. And don’t tell that this will be dealt through the legal system etc.. because we know, based on past occurrences, that the legal system is not behind people such as yourself. So what are your plans? Another few ineffectual million-women ‘pussy hat’ marches? More toothless protests on highways? More scolding articles in the NYT, WP or on NPR? More chest beating by Chris Cuomo and Rachel Maddow? More snarky late-night jokes by Stephen Colbert? Any ideas about how confrontations between Trump supporting hicks with guns and anti-gun leftists will end? Also, how many people will actually fight for Dementia Joe to assume office in the aftermath of a contested election? These are serious questions about very consequential events whose impact will last much longer than four years of either clown- Trump or Biden.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jun 24, 2020

June 24, 2020 5 comments

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

Amateur Topless Beach Cuties: May 23, 2020 – Busty amateur cuties sitting on the beach.

Amateur Shower Cuties: Jun 10, 2020 – Glistening amateur cuties in the shower.

Topless Beach Cuties: Jun 18, 2020 – Normal amateur topless cuties on the beach.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Trump is Still the Favorite for Winning the 2020 Presidential Election: 2

June 22, 2020 13 comments

I wanted to start writing a new series about why there have been no worthwhile advances in the field of computers, software, IT etc for the past 10-20 years and how the current crop of geeks is busy pretending that this is not the case. Then I got a bit lazy and decided that a follow on to my previous post about why Trump is still the favorite to win in 2020 would take far less effort and generate more clicks and “buzz”. Sad.. isn’t it. With that in mind, let us talk about the many other reasons why Trumps is still by far the favorite to win in 2020. But before we go there, here is a quick recap of that previous post. In it, I pointed out that the factors which led to the rise of Trump in 2016 and his victory are still there and in many cases have become more dire. This is analogous to how the socio-economic consequences of WW1 and the Great Depression ensured the rise of fascism and similar ideologies in Europe. If it wasn’t Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc.. there would have been someone else very similar to them.

I went on to show how the democratic party, since late-1970s, gradually became the party of Professional Managerial Class (PMC), a transformation which was complete by 1992. Democrats like to bemoan how the white working class left them, when it is they who abandoned that group to the vagaries of deindustrialization, job outsourcing, credentialism while supporting the growth of a shitty and expensive “health care” system, over-policing of minorities and poor people, high levels of income equality etc. In other words, establishment democrats have not only lost a good portion of their previous base but have managed to piss off a good portion of the voters who allegedly have no option but to vote for them. HRC lost all those mid-western states because the white working class went for Trump while the black working class (especially those below 45) could not be bothered to show up on election day. It does not help that establishment democrats haven’t learnt a single thing from the humiliation by Trump in 2016.

1] In the previous post, I wrote about how all that incessant talk about RussiaGate, UkraineGate, Mueller Report etc by democrats and their allies in the dying corporate media have not had any measurable effect on Trumps’ popularity or lack thereof. But have you wondered why democrats keep trying to pull off crap like that, even when they know it is ineffective at best, and more likely counterproductive? The naive (willingly or otherwise) among you might think that this has something to do with democrats being interested in promoting civility, order or some other lie. Based on my observations over the years, I think otherwise. It is my opinion that democrats are actually intellectually bankrupt and unable to think beyond whatever they have learned from participating in incestuous circle jerks at “prestigious” universities and isolated social bubbles. To be fair, so are their republican counterparts- but it is easier to conceal intellectual bankruptcy when one is also in power. Now some of you might say.. what is the proof?

Well.. in addition to their utter inability to get Trump impeached or entangled in any legal scandal that would result in reliable criminal prosecution, democrats spend almost every waking moment of the day trying to find a way to “diss” Trump. These idiots keep doing all this while Trump (and his cronies) are busy electing right-wing federal judges, passing large tax breaks and bailouts for corporations, weakening laws related to voting etc, rescinding regulations on corporations and a whole lot more. Here is the most recent example.. yesterday, Trump had a campaign rally at Tulsa, Oklahoma with about 40% of the number of supporters he expected. Instead of seeing this in the correct context of it being first large campaign gathering since mid-March in USA and under the shadow of riots across country, I woke to see talentless “celebrities” such as Amy Schumer try to “diss” Trump over number of people at his first rally since COVID-19 shutdown was lifted.

Here are my thoughts, 6,200 is much more than than 100- which is the maximum size of crowds at Biden’s rallies- if you can call them that. If I were an establishment democrat, the thought that a moron who has screwed up so much could still get thousands to attend his first campaign rally in some city in a flyover state under the shadow of COVID-19 and race riots, while Biden cannot get 100 people (non-paid) even if his life depended on it would scare me about the outcome of 2020 presidential election.It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is only going to make Trump redouble his efforts and successfully arrange much larger political rallies. To make matters worse, these liberal shitheads have once gain succeeded in making the orange buffoon look like a sympathetic person under constant attack from the very class most american hate with a passion. And guess what, I bet they can’t see this because their head is so far up their ass.

2] Talking about people with heads up their rears.. let us move on Joe Biden aka Dementia Joe. As many of you know, I have written more than a couple of posts about his senile dementia (link 1, link 2, link 3). Some of you might also remember his very poor performance in the very tame democratic debates. It does not take much of imagination to see how bad he would perform in even a single debate against Trump, let alone three. You might have also realized by now that Biden’s cognitive status (or the lack thereof) has already been one of the main pillars of attack ads against him. These very effective line of attacks against Dementia Joe are only going to to get far more harsher, frequent and overt once the incestuous dummies aka establishment Democrats officially select him as their presidential candidate in the next few weeks. So what is the democrat plan to defend Dementia Joe from such attacks? Well.. I don’t think they have a plan, because if they had any brains they would replaced him with someone without dementia.

But even if Trump did not go after Joe Biden’s obvious dementia (which is highly unlikely), he still has tons of ammo against Biden- given that the later has been involved in everything from militarization of police, increase in mass incarceration, preventing discharge of student loans during bankruptcy, making bankruptcy difficult, PNTR with China, NAFTA and a host of things that are super unpopular with the democratic electorate in 2020. It is very revealing that most (2/3rds) of people who claim they will vote for Joe Biden list not liking Trump as their main reason. In my opinion, this implies he has very soft and easily destructible support. In contrast to this, the majority who say they will vote for Trump will do it because they want him to win the election. That is why any pretend poll which shows Dementia Joe with a 10% lead over Trump almost 5 months from election day under such an unusual and rapidly evolving situation is not worth the paper on which it was printed. I have a feeling that MikeCA might think differently.

In the next part of this series, I will go further into why Joe Biden is an especially bad candidate for this moment in history. Will also discuss possibility of economic conditions and second wave of COVID-19 depressing or altering long-held patterns of electoral turnout.

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on the Economic and Cultural Factors Behind Instagram Girls

June 20, 2020 13 comments

This is one of those posts which I first started writing years ago, but never got around to finishing until now. In previous incarnations of the draft, I considered title such as “Instagram is the latest platform for mediocre women to find simpletons”, “Existence of Instagram girls shows that most men are sad losers” and “Instagram allows mediocre white chicks to pretend they are beautiful”. You can kinda see where this post is headed.. right? Now I am not claiming that Instagram girls are the biggest scourge on that particular social media platform. Spammers trying to sell designer handbag knockoffs or dubious supplements, idiots posting “inspirational quotes”, losers updating the world about their latest restaurant outings are probably more annoying than Instagram girls.

There are, however, are two major differences between these self-anointed “models” and other scammers peddling junk. Firstly, the former have an organic followers unlike the later. Secondly, it is not immediately obvious what product these women are selling. As you will see, exploring these differences casts some interesting light on how white men in anglo countries behave when opposed to their counterparts in other parts of world. A few years ago, I remember writing a post or tweeting that men in anglo countries leave too many overtly complimentary and otherwise pathetic comments to every non-obese chick posting photos of herself on Instagram and other picture and video-centric social media sites. This was especially obvious when you started making comparing social media accounts of non-ugly chicks in USA vs say.. Brazil, Italy or Germany.

So.. what is going on? What makes white men in anglo countries far more likely to be simps than their counterparts in countries such as Brazil, Italy, France and Germany. One simple explanation is that countries and cultures with legalized or free availability of prostitution as a sexual outlet have far fewer simps than countries that do not have such readily available outlets. But 4 out of 5 anglo countries (Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand) have far significantly higher availability of prostitution than the USA.. and yet, men from these countries are only slightly behind USA in terms of posting pathetic and cringeworthy comments to Instagram girls. But why am I am still calling them ‘Instagram girls’ rather than ‘Instagram whores’ or ‘Instagram sluts’? As you will see soon, there is a good reason for that decision.

Some of you might think that my greater familiarity with English could explain preferentially noticing cringeworthy comments by men from anglo countries. Well.. I considered that too and made extensive use of online translating tools to read the comments section of posts by girls from Brazil, Italy, France, Germany etc. The thing is.. whichever way you look it, comments left by men from anglo countries display far more pedestalling and pathetic thirsty behavior than those from other European or Latin countries. And then I noticed something else. See.. a lot of these Instagram models from anglo countries or with predominantly anglo followers (even those with pretty small number of followers) seemed to be living pretty OK lifestyles that were.. should we say.. hard to reconcile with their real-life occupations and money-earning prospects.

It was hard to ignore that many “Instagram models” (even very minor ones) had no problems obtaining tons of new sexy outfits, going on vacation to expensive resorts and hotels, living in pretty nice apartments and houses.. not to mention finding somebody willing to professionally photograph them all the time. Now some of you might say- but.. but.. quality digital cameras have become quite inexpensive, nice new clothes are also not as expensive as they used to be, maybe they got some really good package deal for airfare and posh hotels. Perhaps.. maybe they get good deals on clothes, travel etc because they are seen as social media influences. But here is the problem with that line of thinking. Thing is.. this can certainly explain why the top 5% or maybe 10% of these chicks get some of the stuff and services they flaunt. But it is hard to explain how chicks with less than 2-5k followers can get such largess.

To make matters more interesting.. the conspicuous consumption patterns of chicks with less than 2k followers are often as ostentatious as those with more than 100k. Clearly, something else is at work. Some of you might now say.. maybe they are turning tricks on the side, maybe they have a sugar daddy etc. Well.. based on what I know about escorts, the last thing many of them want is to be recognized as such in real life. Sure.. some of them might have one or more sugar daddies. But I think something else is at work. Many years ago, I knew more than one chick who used their looks and sweet talking to get men to repeatedly pay for stuff such as fancy dinners, vacations, clothes etc without giving them sex in return.

At that time I found it fascinating how so many white men in anglo countries were willing to keep on repeatedly paying for small to medium sized gifts etc for girls who never gave them sex. So here is my theory about how even mediocre chicks on Instagram often seem to live lifestyles far beyond their ability to earn such money. Long story short, I have a very strong feeling and a decent amount of proof that these mediocrities get far more gifts (solicited and unsolicited) from sad and pathetic beta white men (aka the majority) than most of you would believe. Social media platforms make this parasitic behavior far more easier and lucrative than in previous eras because it is far easier to get 2-5k followers on Instagram than it is to meet and flirt with the same number of people in real life.

As to why this is far more common for such simps to be white men.. the short answer is that most of them are thoroughly beta. Also there is a peculiar correlation between colonial racism beliefs and pedestalling white (also Asian or light-skinned Hispanic) women. The funny thing is that the vast majority of those spending money on these parasites gets nothing substantive in return- unlike those who pay for OnlyFans type stuff. There.. I said it, even OnlyFans patrons are less pathetic than those who spend money on Instagram girls. And yes, that is why I said in earlier part of the post, that most were neither whores (sex for money) nor sluts (sex for free)- though in my opinion, being a parasite is far worse than either.

What do you think? Comments?

Trump is Still the Favorite for Winning the 2020 Presidential Election: 1

June 17, 2020 13 comments

Many of you might have seen a slew of recent polls which claim that Dementia Joe currently has a 10-point lead over Orange Man. These polls have elicited a bunch of reactions from the “properly credentialed pundit” class. Some see them as the first definitive sign that Trump will finally lose in 2020, others as validation that 24/7 smearing by corporate MSM finally working. Yet others see them as evidence that the country is finally moving in the “right direction”, whatever that means. You might notice that one word keeps popping up in these reactions.. finally. But is that really the case or are these pundit reactions just more wishful thinking? Well, in my opinion these reactions are the later aka more wishful thinking. Here is why..

1] As late as 7 pm ET on November 8th 2016, every “serious” person was certain that HRC was going to win the presidential election. Any suggestion to the contrary was met with a haughty laugh of the type usually associated with “credentialed experts” educated at “elite universities”. Wonder how did all of that work out? Trump won by the only measure which matters according to the constitution aka the electoral college and became president. But have you ever wondered how so many polls could be so wrong? Now, sad pedants such as MikeCA will try to tell you that the polls correctly predicted the popular vote which HRC won by 2-3 million or about 3%. Let us dissect that defense of polls a bit further.. shall we.

Almost all of HRCs margin in popular votes came from two states with a large population (NY and CA). In other words, Tangerine Man won more votes in you add up the other 48 states than HRC. But let us ignore this trivial issue right now and ask a much bigger question- how does a reality show clown with a very public scandal-ridden past become the presidential nominee of one of the two parties in this country- and why would so many people vote for such a sketchy guy over the ultimate “credentialed diversity” candidate? While many are still in deep denial (MikeCA?), the majority of those who voted for Trump did so despite his numerous shortcomings because they preferred him over somebody who represented everything they hated about the system.

But.. but.. some might say, just because every pundit of any fame was wrong in 2016 does not mean they will be wrong again in 2020. Surely these “credentialed experts” must have learned something from their utter humiliation in 2016.. right? Also, wasn’t Trump positioning himself as an outsider in 2016- something he cannot do in 2020 after being a pathetic president for the past four years.. right? Well.. if you think that most people who voted for Trump did so because he was outsider with great promise, I have a bridge to sell you. And no.. the “experts” haven’t learned a damn thing, otherwise they would not be so certain and giddy about Dementia Joe 2020 prospects almost five months before election day.

So let me repeat the obvious.. again.. most people voted for Trump because he sounded, looked and behaved like them and was therefore a giant ‘FUCK YOU’ to an incestuous political system which ignored and immiserated them for the past 40 years. The conditions which led to his rise are still there and in some areas have worsened considerably since 2016. This is also why the 24/7 smear jobs by corporate media outlets, bullshit reports and impeachment hearings have had very little effect on his popularity ratings- which, face it, have always hovered around the mid-40s. Trump’s ratings are bulletproof because the majority of Americans (voters and non-voters) have lost faith in ability of current system to deliver a better future for them. And one more thing.. most people hate the Professional Managerial Class (PMC) with a passion.

2] Since we are talking about the PMC, let us also talk about the political party that represents them in modern american politics aka the Democrats. As I have written repeatedly in numerous older posts, the biggest difference between democrat and republican politicians is that the former tries to portray itself as more enlightened and of “superior breeding”. However other than such superficial differences between the two parties, they are identical and interchangeable for all practical proposes. Now this was not always the case, and upto the late-1970s, the democratic party (both pre- and post- civil rights) was a different beast from the republican party. Then the great realignment of 1968 and rise of neoliberalism occurred.

To make a very long story short, since late-1970s the upper echelon of democratic party have been increasingly populated by people who even a decade prior to that time would have identified as staunch republicans. Yes.. I am talking about the PMC, especially their coastal versions. These are the type of people who say they are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal and pretend to have a “black friend”. But why do the PMC and wannabe-PMCs matter? Well.. because the ideology and apparatchiks of democratic party (even non-white ones) are almost exclusively drawn from this class. Their ascendance in ranks of democratic party and society began in late 1970s and their stock kept rising until GFC of 2008 after which their fortunes have taken a increasingly steep downward turn. But why does these McMansion dwellers matter?

Well.. because almost every major problem facing this country from deindustrialization, job outsourcing, a shitty and expensive “health care” system, over-policing, high levels of income equality, widespread loss of institutional competence etc can be traced back to the rise of this class in american society. Remember when I said that one of the reasons many people voted for Trump over HRC even though she was the ultimate “credentialed diversity” candidate. The thing is.. HRC reminded people of the generic PMC drone who humiliated them in real life, destroyed their livelihood and profited from it. Interestingly, that is also why Romney lost to Obama in 2012. As I said before in this post, most people just hate.. hate.. PMC types.

But what does any of this have to do with Trump likely winning in 2020? Well.. for starters the VP candidate of Dementia Joe is almost certain to be a member of the PMC. Now this would not be totally disastrous if Dementia Joe did not have senile dementia, because most people who vote in presidential elections tend to focus on top of ticket. But as we all know, Joe Biden has.. should we say, serious and progressive neurological issues.The man is a shadow of what he was as late as 2016, and his declining cognitive status will become a major campaign issue and point of attack by Trump’s campaign. But as you will see in the next part of this short series, choosing Dementia Joe as their presidential candidate is a proverbial tip of the iceberg as far as the deliberate incompetence of democratic party is concerned.

In that part, I will go into how the democratic party squandered 3.5 years on fake scandals like RussiaGate, UkraineGate, Mueller Report etc while quietly going along with traditional republican (in reality, corporate) agendas. I will show you how democrats have acquiesced to almost every corrupt move by Trump and republicans- from appointing conservative judges, approving massive increases in military spending, further gutting the already threadbare social safety net, increasing militarization of police and much.. much.. more. But why does any of this matter? The very short answer is- the democratic party can only win elections at all levels in this country decisively IF they exhibit a concrete and sustained desire to differentiate them from the other party in a manner that actually matters to the average voter. I will also go into why Joe Biden is a uniquely bad candidate for 2020, albeit in a different way than HRC was in 2016.

What do you think? Comments?

Potential Consequences of 200-300k COVID-19 Deaths by Election Day

June 12, 2020 16 comments

In the midst of nationwide protests against police brutality, most mainstream media outlets seem to have conveniently forgotten that the COVID-19 pandemic is still killing (mostly old people) in this country at a pretty constant rate. While we are no longer at the peak of about 3k deaths per day, the plateau of about 1k per day does not seem to be decreasing further. Sure.. most people in NYC have probably been exposed to the virus and recovered from it, but most people in flyover country, the deep south and west coast are just now starting to be exposed to it on a large scale. And this brings up an interesting question.. what if COVID-19 ends up killing 200k-300k more people between now and November 3, 2020 aka election day?

To be clear, I am not restricting my analysis to the political implications of such a scenario- which will be considerable. It goes without saying that 200-300k more deaths (even if most are elderly) will throw a massive wrench in the process of reopening the economy in addition to destroying millions more jobs and small businesses than the original shutdown. While I am sure that the stock market will continue booming in response to trillions more dollars for large corporations in the event of such a scenario, it is clear that everybody else will be poor, angry and desperate- especially since political leaders of both parties have shown themselves to be grossly inadequate for the job. Let us now talk about a few obvious effects of such a scenario playing out..

1] A couple hundred thousand more deaths due to COVID-19 will deplete the older (and largely conservative) voter-base of both parties in more than one way. Firstly, there is direct attrition due to the disease in the form of voters who are dead or unwell from post-infection complications (much more likely in 65+ age group). But the indirect effect of such a large number of deaths among the elderly might keep many more in that age range from coming out to vote in person. While this isn’t that big an issue in states with a robust system for voting by mail, it could be spoil a lot of electoral calculations in states where such systems aren’t already in place.

2] Since neither of the two parties have demonstrated the ability, competence or willingness to help the average person most affected by the shutdown.. who is under 45 and increasingly non-white, it would be presumptuous to count on their votes. While it is unlikely that republican will vote for democratic candidates or vice-versa, it is possible that an unusually large number of voters below 50 will just stay home and note vote by election day. This scenario is especially likely if the economy does not pick up by election day, an almost certain outcome if there an additional 200-300k deaths by election day. So we now have a situation where electoral turnout among under-45 and over-65 is likely to be significantly lower than the previous election.

3] But wait.. there is more. As mentioned in previous paragraph, an extra 200-300k deaths by 3rd of November would pretty much negate all the efforts to reopen economy- even if it was not shut down once again. Think about it.. how many people would go to restaurants and bars again even if they were open. What about movie theaters, concerts, sporting events or even malls and offices. What about the effects of such a prolonged and rolling disruption on millions of small businesses, most of whom operate on fairly small profit margins and do not have access to trillions in bailout money unlike large corporations. To make matters worse, both political parties have exhibited a strong unwillingness to bailout both the average person and small business.

4] Which leads us the likelihood of widespread civil unrest, of a scale that will make ongoing BLM protests seem almost quaint by comparison. It is no secret that a pretty significant percentage of those under 40 have jobs or gigs which either disqualify them from unemployment insurance or restrict their access to such benefits. To make matters worse, many financial institutions and rent-seeking outfits have decided that they will not defer or forgive recurring payments from such people- in spite of already having received trillions to cover their potential losses in the event this occurs. So what do you think these people are going to do when they are being evicted from their residences, chased by loan repayment sharks and unable to maintain necessities such as cars.

Did I mention that most of these people are in good physical shape, more educated than their parents and have nothing to lose. Oh.. and one more things, a high percentage of them are white or something other than black- which means the rioting, unrest and other fun will not be restricted to downtown and ‘urban’ areas of large cities. To make matters even worse.. there is very likely to be another wave of mass layoffs over next few months even if the excess 200-300k deaths due to COVID-19 don’t materialize as many business that seem to have survived the initial shutdown have to either shutdown permanently or lay off a good percentage of their current employees. In my opinion, widespread civil unrest, over next few months, by the under-45 due to the economic consequences of this shutdown is now almost inevitable.

5] A further fly in the ointment has to do with the many ongoing standoffs by dying american empire against a host of countries from Iran, Syria and Venezuela to DPRK, Russia and China. Given that Tangerine man’s closest advisors are neocons and the idiot-in-chief seems to think that this voter-base respect “shows of strength”, it is likely that he will decide to intensify these standoffs or even start a war with Iran or DPRK. It does not take a genius to figure out that such military conflicts are unwinnable for USA and will only worsen the domestic situation, especially if the bozo does this after widespread unrest has already started in this country.

To summarize, an extra 200-300k deaths due to COVID-19 by November 3, 2020 are more likely than not, and will worsen a host of large problems and negative trends that we are are already seeing in this country. 2020 promises to even more ‘exciting’ that we anticipated..

What do you think? Comments?

Theory about Why White Protesters Discovered Police Brutality in 2020

June 10, 2020 17 comments

One of the most interesting feature of current nationwide protests against police brutality in this country concerns their racial demography. Many of you might have noticed that the majority (in many cases over 90%) of people protesting against police brutality in cities all over this country are.. well.. white. To be clear, I am not claiming that all previous protests against police brutality in this country have been overwhelmingly black. We do know, for example, that similar protests in the 2012-2017 had a significant minority of white protesters. But the widespread protests we are seeing all over this country now is the first time that the overwhelming majority of protesters at most locations are white. So what has changed between the last time we saw such protests? How did so many young white people suddenly reach the conclusion that “legalized” lynching of black people in this country by police was wrong and unacceptable?

As it turns out, I am not the only person to have noticed this unusual trend- especially given the peculiar history of race and racism in this country. As late as mid-1990s, the parents of most white people who are now protesting against police brutality towards black people were highly enthusiastic supporters of laws and regulations that dehumanized black people and saw them as irredeemable “feral animals” and “super-predators”. Even as late as 2012-13, protests against instances of “legalized” lynching of black people in USA were an almost exclusively black affair. Even multiple instances of similar videotaped instances of police brutality such as the murder of Eric Garner by NYPD, Philando Castile by MPD, Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery by GCPD and many more did not elicit such a large, strong and nationwide response. Isn’t it odd that it took until late-May 2020 for a similar incident to finally cause the appropriate reaction.

So.. what is going on? How did a significant minority or maybe even majority of younger white people suddenly develop the firm conviction that systemic racism and “legalized” lunching of black people by cops was unacceptable? Many presstitutes on Twitter have put forth a range of theories to explain the sudden interest in racial equality among younger white people. One of the most popular suggests that this has something to do with the COVID-19 lockdown which cooped up too many people in their homes for almost two months.. aka ‘cabin fever’. Perhaps.. by why did it manifest itself as an newfound interest in racial equality rather than say people flouting the stupid lockdown orders on a large scale? As many of you know, people were already flouting lockdown orders all over the country and more than a few of the previous cycle of protests to open the economy had a pretty decent numbers in attendance.

Another popular theory suggests that this newfound interest in racial equality has something to do with ‘virtue display’ under late-capitalism. While it is true that the willingness of corporations to go along with these protests has everything to do with empty virtue signalling- it is equally clear that majority of people who are protesting are not there because some corporation paid them. Even if we accept that some protesters are there to show off their liberal and progressive credentials, it is equally clear that the majority aren’t in it for virtue display. Some others have compared these protests to a new religious movement often humorously referred to as the “great aWOKEning”. While many mass movements do have quasi-religious overtones, these arise after the movement has become big rather than cause its growth and popularity.

Here is my theory. Regular readers might remember that I repeatedly alluded to the possibility of the widespread civil unrest due to gross mishandling of COVID-19 crisis by the governments of many countries- but especially in USA. If you have read those posts, you might also remember that I said something about the governments bailing out large corporations while throwing just a few crumbs to average people and small business will very likely be what precipitates such a reaction. Well.. as we know now the unemployment and underemployment numbers in this country are through the roof- even if Trump tried to massage them. It is also noteworthy that rates of unemployment and underemployment are especially high among those under 40-45, which is the same group that also suffered the maximum long-term damage from the 2008 GFC.

To put it another way, the majority of people under 40-45 (regardless of race) have seen a continual decline in the material quality of their lives and experienced little advantage of being white- unlike boomers of older- Gen-Xers. AS I said in a previous post, there was a lot of dry tinder on the ground before the perfect spark of George Floyds’ lynching by the MPD. The point I was trying to make is the fuel for this fire was created over a long time by continually declining living standards for people under a certain age. But there is more.. the COVID-19 pandemic was the proverbial straw which broke the camel’s back by exposing the sheer incompetence of many supposedly respectable institutions both national (CDC, FDA etc) and international (WHO). It also exposed the inability and unwillingness of political leadership in this country, at all levels, to help the very people who they were supposed to represent and voted them into power.

What we are seeing now is the manifestation of people expressing widespread, and potentially irreversible, loss of faith in the institutions and systems of governance under which they currently live. But how does this get transformed into protests against racism and police brutality? Well.. because the police along with those involved in taxation are the two most visible enforcers of the coercive state authority. In other words, police are the most visible public face of a failed system in which a lot of people have now lost all trust and hope. Given these connections between the police and authority of a system that is rapidly losing popular legitimacy, it is no wonder that so many white people under 40-45 have suddenly discovered racism and police brutality against black people. It also does not help the overpaid, militarized and arrogant losers who populate police departments thought USA do not cut a sympathetic figures among those who have either lost their job or have seen substantial reduction in their income stream.

What do you think? Comments?

When Life Starts Imitating Art: The June 2020 Movie Edition

June 5, 2020 9 comments

Since I am feeling a bit lazy today, thought it might be a good idea to finish a short post that was in my drafts folder for a couple of weeks. So.. there are a couple (or more) movies from the past few years which bear an interesting, and at times eerie, resemblance to what has been occurring in this country for the past two weeks. I am sure the more conspiracy-minded among you might see something else. In any case, here is the first relevant clip.

This one is from ‘V for Vendetta’ (2005). While not the best adaptation of original graphic novel, the material from this clip is particularly relevant to how seeming invulnerable institutions and systems of governance that are no longer connected with reality can be overwhelmed by the consequences of their own stupidity- in this case, reaction to civil unrest. The especially relevant bit is that the ‘fingermen’ in the novel (and movie) have a rather strong resemblance to police in this country. The graphic novel talks much more about general dissatisfaction with the system among most people. Long story short, ever increasing demonstrations of force create a cycle of more sympathetic victims and ever increasing levels of resistance among populace.

V for Vendetta: The Dominoes Fall

The second clip is from a more recent movie- ‘Joker’ (2019). As many of you know, the titular character in this movie is a withdrawn “loser” living in near-poverty who has nothing to lose. His actions (killing three bankers and that TV show host on live TV) ends up sparking large-scale civil unrest against the police and plutocrats in the fictional Gotham city. The key to understanding this clip is that, once again, most people in the city are already tired of the system and the Joker’s action just provide the perfect spark to ignite a large pre-existing collection of tinder. If either clip seems far fetched, let me remind you that WW1 was ignited by the actions of an incompetent assassin who got lucky and WW2 was started by the most unlikely rise of a certain failed landscape artist and drifter to power.

Joker: Anarchy in Gotham

What do you think? Comments?

Some Older Posts about the Problem of Police Murdering Black People

June 1, 2020 30 comments

As some readers will remember, I have been writing for many years about what state-approved lynching of black people, especially men, by cops says about american society. Needless to say, my observations about this phenomenon go beyond blaming the cops (who are guilty, of course) to issues such as the intersection of racism and capitalism in a rapidly declining empire. And yes.. what we are seeing now (in post-1965 era) has a much more to do with maintaining the cosmetic appearance of a terminally declining order than actually achieving anything substantive. Think of it as the cosplay accompanying the ongoing final decline of an empire- and read the above-linked short series if you interested in my reasoning for that specific conclusion.

In the past, I have also addressed issues such as why police are much more likely to kill unarmed black men than say arab or somali men. Long story short, the second worst thing to happen to black people in this country was Christianity which ensured their mind was as enslaved as their bodies. Therefore they do not react to the lynching of other black people with the same deadly ferocity as say arabs, somalis or any other ethno-linguistic group. Here is a quote..

It is very likely that police murdering Muslims from the ME at even a fraction of rate of Blacks in USA would severely compromise the personal safety of themselves and their families. In contrast to that, police murdering black people in USA will at most result in more marches, prayers at some church and tearful interview with relatives on TV. European whites did not get kicked out for good out of Asian and African countries after WW2 because they feared peaceful marches, prayer assemblies and tearful testimonies. American whites did not get kicked out of North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because of nonviolent resistance by the local population.

Belief in Christianity and consequent self-hatred is also why many older and even some young black people seeking respectability are unwilling to openly say that cops are murderers even when the evidence for that assertion is very clear. Here is a quote from that post..

At the risk of being even more controversial, it is fair to say that the effect of Christianity and its institutions on black people in USA has been largely negative. Religions with their focus on the “next life”, false “morality” and victim-blaming have always been the opiate of the masses. It is telling that black people are among the most devout followers of Christianity in USA. Moreover, their strong belief in Christianity is an important part of why so many in the older generation believe in bullshit concepts such as “respectability” and “acceptance” by whites.

There is also the problem of most black “leaders” still coming from the background of organized religion. It also does not help that most all them are scam artists who are too happy to play the house slave for monetary rewards. To put it another way, the religious convictions of black people and the type of people who end up becoming their “leaders” has a lot to do with why there has not been progress in the field of civil rights since the 1970s. It is also why the black community has been unable to respond to problems such as mass incarceration, continued systemic racial discrimination and frequent state-sanctioned murders of its members.

As mentioned in previous paragraph, there is also the issue of the ‘black mis-leadership class‘. To make another long story short, the vast majority of black political leadership since the 1970s is made up of frauds and hucksters who will throw their supporters under the bus at the slightest chance of personal profit. These CONmen and CONwomen have no real interest in the betterment or upliftment of the people who vote them into office. Here is a quote from that post..

Over the past few years, I noticed something interesting about the response of almost all of the so-called ‘black leadership’ types to large protests about police brutality against black people. To make a long story short, even though they acknowledged the existence of this problem almost every single one of them did nothing beyond push for a few cosmetic measures and make long speeches. And this includes that black neoliberal president aka Obama.

In other words, they took great care not to upset the status quo while using those events to cynically get more black people to vote for them in elections. When I looked at this issue in more detail, it became obvious that we have not gone past the level of change achieved by the civil rights moment of 1950s-60s. Which is a nice way of saying that black ‘leadership’ since the 1970s has largely been about pretending to fight for equality for their constituency while simultaneously supporting the status quo and getting rich.

Finally there is the issue of ‘black respectability politics’, which is regrettably still a thing among older black people– especially older black women. There is a reason why aneoliberal CONman such as Obama, whose policies as a president did a lot of damage to his own group, still has high approval ratings among older black people- even though he is the political equivalent of Bill Cosby. In summary, this is much deeper problem than many would like to believe.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on Why the Summer of 2020 Will be Full of Discontent

May 31, 2020 26 comments

Regular readers might remember that a couple of my posts on the topic of COVID-19 (link 1, link 2) explicitly mention the likelihood of serious and lasting social unrest – especially in USA. Some of you might also remember another post (link 3) on that topic on which I talked about collapse of public trust in the old establishment after WW1 and during the great depression of early 1930s was responsible for the rise of fascists and strongmen and military types all over the world- from Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Poland to Japan. Many years ago, I wrote yet another short post (link 4) about how the Nazi Party was a fringe party in Germany (receiving no more than 5% of votes for many years) until the economic crash of 1929 caused in a huge rise in unemployment which was made worse by the austerity policies of Heinrich Brüning.

To make a long story short, there is enough historical data from previous one hundred years that actual unemployment rates over 20% consistently produce interesting and “unexpected” political outcomes. As many of you might have heard, the unemployment rates in this country (massaged as they are) have now exceeded 25%. Let me also remind you that the unemployment benefit system in this country is designed to exclude people from receiving benefits. Therefore the real unemployment rate is probably closer to 35-40%. The last time we saw such high rates in our country was in the early 1930s- almost 90 years ago. To make matters a bit more interesting, the rates of unemployment among the healthy young are much higher than those of in older age groups. In other words almost everybody under 40 or 45 is screwed.

But why does it matter and what is the relevance of any of this to my predictions of widespread social unrest for the past two months? Well.. let me ask you a few simple questions. Firstly, how did all that talk of social-distancing and COVID-19 dissolve into thin air within the past 2-3 days? Isn’t it odd that the country went from pretending to shame people who violated all those stupid guidelines to burning down social unrest at multiple places in at least 25 cities (thus far) all over this country. Also, how come so many young white people have decided to protest the public murder and lynching of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. What is going on? Surely, all these young white people could not have suddenly developed so much empathy for black people within the past couple of months.. could they?

More than a few “hip” journalists are trying to spin a theory that this is all the result of people spending too much time indoors in past two months. Perhaps.. but why aren’t we seeing the same sorts of protests in other western countries yet? What is so exceptional about this country? Well.. have you ever considered the possibility that one of the biggest difference between USA and other developed country is the quality of the social safety net? Also, USA is an empire in an accelerating phase of its decline. Furthermore, you might have noticed that the age range of protesters skews heavily towards the younger end. In case you haven’t figure what I am getting at by now, let me say it clearly. It is not so much about about race and policing as much as it is about a collapse of belief in the ability of existing status quo to continue providing even the previous bare minimum of living standards.

However, this does not mean that race and policing are not an issue for most people protesting. It is just that they matter in ways not readily obvious to conventional thinkers. Let me explain.. white muricans of previous generations (upto middle of Gen-X) benefited from racial inequality and disparate policing of minorities. That is why for example, shitholes such as Reagan, Clinton, Bush41 and 43 got elected and why that whole “tough of crime” bullshit flourished from mid-1970s to 2008. However due to neoliberal globalization etc, almost everybody born in late 1970s and after has, to put it mildly, been fucked over by the system- regardless or race. Sure.. black people have been screwed over the most but, unlike in previous eras, so have whites below a certain age- albeit to a lesser degree. Long story short, whites people below a certain age have little to no loyalty for system. Then there is the issue of racial demography.

It is no secret that a rapidly increasing percentage of the younger age groups are non-white and therefore have even less of an attachment to the old status quo. It also does not help that those under 40 have been disproportionately affected by negative socio-economic changes from loss of job security, ever increasing costs for housing, higher education and healthcare, multiple asset bubbles whose bursting transferred wealth in this country upwards, the global financial crisis of 2008, stagnant or declining wages for all their working lives. In other words, they have been served a massive shit-sandwich in the name of american exceptionalism and all that associated bullshit for the past twenty years. To make matters worse, if that is possible, the militarization of police throughout this country which began in earnest during 1990s has made them even less accountable and far more willing to harass and abuse white people than they used to in the past.

To make another long story short, majority of those under 40 are far more likely to take the side of a black guy murdered by police than their parents generation. It does not help that the police no longer have popular legitimacy among the younger age groups as they are now seen as as occupying force elusively protecting the interest of hyper-parasitic plutocrats. While this sor of discontent had been openly brewing since 2008, a series of events in past few months have pushed things into overdrive. The small-scale riots you are seeing right now all over this country are just the beginning of an interesting period on the history of this country- assuming there is a functional one left by the time this phase is over. And yes.. that particular outcome is much more likely than most people are willing to admit.

The thing is.. the very public lynching of George Floyd was the perfect spark which set fire to a lot of dry tinder and fuel that had been accumulating (at an increasingly accelerating rate) for past few years. Most dumb conventional thinkers pay too much attention to the spark but ignore the tinder and fuel- at their own peril. These idiots think that all these riots will be self-limiting or follow patterns from the past- such as those from the late 1960s. Here is my prediction.. they won’t follow previous patterns and here is why. The late 1960s or any other period in american history after 1938 did not have prolonged 20% + unemployment. Nor were the unemployment rates so peculiarly distributed by age. If you think that close to 50% unemployment + severe underemployment rates for those under 40-45 won’t cause more and larger social problems in a country without an effective social safety net, you are delusional.

And no.. the economy is not going to come back to “normal” within a few months. In fact, it is much more likely to get worse before it can get better. Problem is that most of those under a certain age do not have the financial resources to stay afloat till then without a job that pays the same as before. It is no coincidence that the rioting started close to the time (almost two months into COVID-19 shutdown) when most people under 40 would start running out of money and credit to maintain their previous lifestyles and in many cases afford the essentials. If you think whatever happened all over this country on this weekend was bad.. just wait a few more weeks. Also the type of rioting, violence and civil disturbances you have see untill now are just a teaser trailer of what might occur within next 2-3 months.

To make matters worse, if that is still possible, the elites from both political parties in this country are out of touch with reality. These dumbfucks appear to think that all of this unpleasantness will just go away if they double down or pretend that these protests are only about race and policing. We are already seeing idiots on both side of approved political spectrum pretend that these riots were caused by “foreign interference” and “out of state professional agitators” etc. By basing their next actions on such delusional thinking, they are going to choose paths of action which will further inflame the situation. I, for one, do not find this surprising- since almost every single empire in its terminal phase is ruled by elites who have lost touch with reality and hence fail to appreciate the real-life limitations of their rapidly declining power.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Method for Determining the Demographic Destiny of Any Group

May 27, 2020 26 comments

Here is one of those posts which I started writing years ago but did not finish till today, because it was.. well.. so short. Yes, one of the two reasons I kept delaying its publication was my inability to find something extra or deeply significant about the basic concept. The other being that this post will almost certainly attract some traditional and socially CONservative types- a group that I don’t care about.. to put it mildly.

So without further ado, here is how you determine whether any group (racial, ethnic, economic, religious etc) will grow or shrink in the near future. Ready.. if the median age of first birth in women of said group is under 26, then it has a bright demographic future. If the median age of first birth in women is over 28, that group is headed for a rapidly shrinking demographic future.

But wait.. there is more. The father’s age is equally important. Groups where the father’s age at time of birth of his first child is under 30 are expanding. Conversely, groups where the father’s age at time of first child’s birth is over 30 are aging and contracting. The above two observations hold regardless of factors such as historical era, race, ethnicity, religion, culture etc.

Confused? Let me explain the concept with a few examples and also tell you how I first stumbled on this observation. Looking back at my ancestors, I realized something peculiar about changes in number of children per woman. While both sides of my family tree were always well off, the number of kids per women (fertility rate) dropped sharply after the 1940s. This occurred irrespective of level of education for women or whether they had jobs outside the house.

The point I am trying to make is that the drop in fertility had nothing to do with ability to afford having more kids. Sure.. medical developments after 1940 ensured that almost all kids born to parents who can afford them will live to adulthood and beyond. But then again, the majority of kids born to my ancestors in previous eras made it to adulthood.. so survival of genetic legacy was unlikely to be a consideration.

So what was going on? Well.. while overhearing conversations among the older members of my family I realized that around that time, the average age of marriage of women went up rather steeply- from late teens to early 20s. We can certainly debate the social, economic and cultural shifts which caused that change- but it does not matter, because the outcome does not change. Years later, I noticed a very similar pattern when looking at chronological demographic data for countries such as UK and France.

By then, I had also noticed something else. The median number of children per woman drops below 2 once the age of having first child for women exceeded 28. Also, this observation holds regardless of country or social class. While this shift first occurred in the more “educated” and moneyed classes of every country, it has since spread much further- especially in westernized countries. The most curious part of this shift is that it has little to do with ability to financially support more children. And it gets even weirder..

While some of you might think that the correlation of male age at birth of first child with fertility rates is simply an artifact of men being a few years older than women in most marriages or relationships, it is a much more complicated than that. See.. men who haven’t had kids by 30 are much less likely to seek relationships where they want to have them. Moreover, even if they have kids after 30, it is seldom more than two- and usually one or one.

Now I am sure some of you will tell me about counterexamples they know in person. To that I say.. sure.. but I am talking about the correlation of parental age with average and median number of children. I am sure that somebody like a sports star, famous rapper, movie celebrity or somebody that is very interested in having many kids might have more. But they are the minority and face it.. very few people have a half-dozen or more kids.

To summarize, the total number of kids a woman has starts dropping sharply once her age at birth of first child is over 22, approaches replacement (IFR ~ 2) if her age is between 24-26 and goes below replacement (IFR < 2) once her age exceeds 28. As far as men are concerned, those who haven't become first-time fathers by 30 are unlikely to have more than two- usually one or zero. This occurs regardless of their financial ability to support more children.

I am sure that many of you will have a lot to say about my observations and potential reasons behind these socio-economic-cultural shifts.

What do you think? Comments?

Controversy over Hydroxychloroquine Exposes Emptiness of LIEbralism

May 22, 2020 14 comments

Let me begin by saying that I would have preferred to write about the actual science behind the potential usefulness of Hydroxychloroquine (and other 4-aminoquinolines such as Chloroquine, Amodiaquine etc) for treating COVID-19 infections. In fact, I might still do that in the near future. But the debate around their use, has for reasons we shall soon explore, now entered the realm of ideology aka secular religious beliefs. While we can certainly argue over who is to blame more for the politicization of what should have been a scientific debate, one thing is very clear- the debate around use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 has exposed the incredible vacuousness of LIEbralism, specifically its american variant.

I won’t bore you with the history of how anti-malarial drugs were developed almost 70-80 years ago in this post, other than saying that it is a very interesting story- provided you are interested in how drug development actually worked during the golden age of drug discovery. The only relevant part of that story for the purpose of this post concerns their subsequent re-purposing for treating auto-immune diseases. To make another long and interesting story short, by the 1970s, it became obvious through a bunch of serendipitous observations that these drugs could be used to treat autoimmune diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Nowadays in western countries these drugs, specifically Hydroxychloroquine, are almost exclusively used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases.

The anti-viral effects of these drugs were accidentally discovered sometime in the 1970s during experiments aimed at determining the mechanisms of viral entry into cells. Some of the first published reports about their anti-viral activity can be found as far back as 1980. Without going into further detail in this post, the ability of CQ and HCQ to block infection and spread of infection of a number of viruses from diverse families at concentrations achievable in body tissues with normal therapeutic doses is established science- not a matter of controversy. Some of you might ask.. why haven’t these drugs been used for treatment of viral diseases till now. Well.. there are two main reasons.

Firstly, by 1980, we had already developed very effective vaccines for every major acute viral disease affecting humans. So.. we already had vaccines for everything from rabies and yellow fever to measles and mumps by the time this particular effect of CQ and HCQ was discovered. Effective vaccines are just way cheaper and far more effective at controlling infectious diseases whenever they are available. Secondly, while these drugs do have some effect against chronic viral diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C, we quickly found far more effective and specific drugs to treat those illnesses. In other words, we never needed drugs such as CQ and HCQ to treat acute viral infections on any large scale until now.

As far as coronaviruses are concerned, we have known that both drugs inhibit the SARS virus in cell cultures at very reasonable concentrations since 2004 and 2005. In fact, the first instance of a paper describing this effect for a species of bovine (cattle) coronavirus can be found as early as 1990. We also have data showing the efficacy of CQ for treating certain coronavirus infections in animal models as early as 2009. So the idea that CQ and HCQ can treat coronaviral infections, especially if given early on in the course of illness, is perfectly sound and based in experimental data. The real question, then, is whether they work in humans suffering from coronaviral diseases. And this brings us to the issue of when such drugs should be started..

The thing with acute viral infections is that, unlike most bacterial or fungal infections, peak viral replication occurs before the peak clinical symptoms. This has a lot to do with the ability of one virus (infecting a cell) to generate several hundred daughter viruses in contrast to one bacteria multiplying into two every thirty or so minutes. Long story short, drugs for treating acute viral infections work best (or at all) only if given early on in the course of illness. That is why drugs like Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and Valaciclovir (Valtrex) have to be started within 48 hours of first definitive symptoms, of Flu and Herpes Simplex (or Zoster) respectively, for maximal efficacy.

As far as COVID-19 is concerned, there are two phases of the illness: predominantly viral (first 4-5 days) and predominantly inflammatory (6-7 days onward). Note that serious respiratory issues occur in the inflammatory phase, not the earlier viral phase. For any anti-viral drug for this illness would have to be administered within first 4-5 days of symptoms to have any worthwhile effect. That is why even a direct anti-viral such as Remdesivir which works pretty well in many animal models of various coronaviruses has such poor efficacy in hospitalized patients on ventilators. If the patient has reached the stage where peak viral replication has already occurred, you are far better off giving supportive care than any anti-viral drug.

Based on my knowledge of medical microbiology and pharmacology, here is what I think about the potential efficacy of HCQ in treatment of COVID-19. The drug will very likely reduce the extent of viral multiplication and size of peak if given within first 3-4 days of symptoms. Such a substantial reduction in viral load will likely result in a far more benign course for the illness. Furthermore the strong immunomodulatory effects of HCQ will also reduce the amounts of various pro-inflammatory cytokines released by the body in response to the virus. Long story short, HCQ if given within first 3-4 days of symptoms (fever, malaise, cough etc) will very likely result in a substantial reduction in number of people who go onto become ill enough to require hospitalization and mechanical ventilation.

My point is that HCQ is not a wonder drug, but used early enough in the infection it should reduce the risk of clinical deterioration often seen in later phase of disease process. So.. it is not going to miraculously prevent infection or milder forms of the disease- just stop people from getting ill enough to require hospitalization and intubation. In that respect, it is very similar to Oseltamivir and other neuraminidase inhibitors used to treat Influenza. And guess what.. more than a few preprints of publications from China say the exact same thing. According to them and emerging reports from Italian doctors, using it to treat patients within first few days of illness or when they have just arrived in hospital with mild respiratory failure reduces the risk of hospitalization and intubation respectively by about 3-4 times compared to historical controls. Also, people on that drug who are not in serious respiratory failure seem to recover faster than otherwise.

While a reduction of 3-4 fold reduction in rates of hospitalization and intubation is not in the same class as using antibiotics to treat bacterial pneumonia, it is definitely better than nothing. More importantly, and relevant to rest of this post, the drug has little to no efficacy in people who are already far into the second phase of illness. So giving it to people with severe respiratory failure and those on ventilators is close to useless. This is why I find the corporate media obsession with “studies” by LIEbral american doctors in certain states who purposely bias their test population with patients who are very ill and in second phase of illness to be both sad and darkly comic. Who are these dumbfucks trying to convince? Then again, LIEbrals have never been known for their intelligence, otherwise the orange man would have never won the presidency in 2016- but he did.

But why are these pathetic attempts to pretend that HCQ has no efficacy so incredibly stupid and likely to backfire very badly? Well.. because the world is bigger than coastal states.

As we speak, doctors from Turkey and Russia to India and Italy are prescribing HCQ quite freely to patients within first few days of illness. From the look of things thus far, it seems that the strategy of prescribing that drug to anybody with even mild or suspected COVID-19 is certainly reducing the rate of hospitalization and death. While Italy started a bit later than others down that path, their death rate is now going down much faster than countries such as UK and USA at an equivalent stage of the pandemic. You can bet that these results will be written up and published in medical journals within next few months. Even in this country, some states are using HCQ far more freely to treat even milder cases or those in first stage of illness. These results too will be written up and published soon. And guess what will happen next..

As I have said in many previous posts, LIEbrals are too stupid to pick the right fight- in addition to be quite incompetent, despite their “credentials”. The fight these dumbfucks chose this time was always a losing proposition. Let me explain. See.. there are only two possible outcomes to the HCQ controversy: 1] It works to a limited extent and reduces need for hospitalization and intubation or 2] It has zero therapeutic effect. Notice that I said nothing about adverse effects.. here is why.. HCQ, when taken in normal therapeutic doses, is a remarkably safe drug in real life. This is especially so if you are taking it for less than two weeks. The smart thing to do was ignore the HCQ controversy and insist on the drug being tried under a variety of circumstances.

That way, you can win regardless of outcome. If it turns out be effective, that is great news. If it fails, you can claim to have tried all possible options- and let other people blame Trump. But the LIEbral mind is too petty and stupid to gasp such solid reasoning. Instead these fucking dimwits converted the HCQ controversy into political football, a game they will lose either way. Confused? Let me explain, again. See.. if it turns out that HCQ reduces hospitalization and intubation, LIEbrals look like petty murderers. But even if turns out to have zero therapeutic effect, almost nobody outside their clique will believe it because these morons have lied about everything connected to Trump for past four years. The boy who cried wolf!

The sad reality is that even if HCQ was ineffective, too many voters will connect the LIEbral attempts to smear that drug with their futile attempts to get rid of Trump via the Russia-Gate, Ukraine-Gate and other stupid conspiracies. It does not help that democratic politicians seem very enthusiastic about prolonging the lockdown resulting in far more unemployment and human suffering than would otherwise occur. Also, if it eventually turns out that HCQ reduces risk of hospitalization and death when given early, the orange man will end up looking like a genius.

What do you think? Comments?