Archive

Archive for August, 2017

On the Rise of NeoLiberalism in West During the 1968-2008 Era: Part 1

August 31, 2017 10 comments

One of the more interesting questions about neoliberalism concerns its apparent popularity among the general population in western countries during the 1968-2008 era. I mean.. why did so many average people in western countries willingly support neoliberal ideas and policies during that era? Some of might say that a similar percentage of the population in 1930-era Germany also supported Nazism- and therefore most people are easily misled idiots. Except that is not really true..

The rise of public support for Nazism in 1930-era Germany was the culmination of widespread disgust with repeated catastrophic failures of mainstream political parties in governing the country. To put it another way, the supposedly “normal” political parties of that era had shown themselves to be incapable of maintaining a general acceptable level of governance- on more than one occasion. Things reached a climax in the early 1930s when global economic depression and ‘austerity’ driven economic policies cause mass unemployment and misery among the general population.

At that stage, the only two remaining alternatives were the Nazis or some coalition of communist parties. After the 1932 elections, the rich and petite bourgeoisie in Germany supported the “business friendly” Nazis over the communist parties. Hitler took full advantage of the situation and the rest, as they say, is history. In other words, the rise of popular support for the Nazi party in 1930-era era Germany looks far more rational once you consider the environment in which it occurred. They did also implement some fairly populist polices (at least for the majority) in the first few years of their rule.

The point I am trying to make is that public popularity of repugnant ideologies in certain historical eras should not be seen as evidence that people are stupid or easily misled. Instead, such popularity should be understood, if not celebrated, through the lens of prevailing socio-economic conditions and cultural mores. That is also why people like Mussolini, Stalin, Franco came into power and were able to hold onto it for so long. That is also how so many ‘muricans still see their country as one of good law and order when it was always about enslaving, exploiting and murdering black and other non-white people.

And this brings me to the main questions posed in the current post, which are as follows: Why did so many average people in western countries support neoliberal ideas and policies during the 1968-2008 era? Why did so many non-rich people cheer on an ideology which made their lives poorer, more precarious and generally more shittier than before? Was it just good propaganda or were the reasons for the public support for neoliberalism during that era more systemic than most critics are willing to admit? And why might the critics of neoliberalism not want to consider systemic factors behind its rise during that era?

One of the biggest contemporary myth about the rise of neoliberalism is that it was centrally planned by cabals of rich businessmen behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms. While I do not doubt that many such meetings occurred, it can (at best) explain changes in some government policy changes in a few countries such as USA and UK. However as anybody who has lived during that era will remember, the public was also very enthusiastic about a number of neoliberal policies from cutting the social welfare net, privatization of public goods and services, financialization of the economy, increasing corporate profits and many other ridiculous ideas.

So how do you explain public enthusiasm during that era for so many neoliberal policies? What were they thinking, or not thinking, when supporting those ideas and policies? What drove them to support policies that were against their best long-term self interests?

Here is my theory..

1] General prosperity and economic growth in the west after WW2, coupled with the residual effects of pre-WW2 colonialism resulted in what is probably the largest gap in living standards between the west and the rest of the world during the 1950s-1980s. Of course, that gap in living standards has decreased ever since those years and could likely go in the other direction in the future. Nevertheless, your average white person who grew up in that era almost certainly saw this as “proof” of their inherent racial superiority. They interpreted something which occurred through a combination of circumstances and luck as the natural order of things.

It is therefore not surprising that con-artists such as Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman etc started gaining an ever larger popular audience. While support by the scheming rich certainly helped these con-artists attain social respectability, it was the general environment of western society during those three decades which made neoliberalism seem ‘right’ in the first place. Most contemporary critics of neoliberalism would prefer to believe it was clever propaganda and sinister brain-washing, rather than inherent racism and other popular delusions of white people in western countries, which made neoliberalism the default ideology of the 1968-2008 era.

2] Some of you might have noticed that I consider 1968, and not the early 1980s, to be the beginning of neoliberal era. But why 1968? Didn’t neoliberalism start in the early 1980s under Reagan and Thatcher? While it is true that overt policy implementation of neoliberalism started in the early 1980s, the ideology itself had been fashionable for over a decade before 1980. While the precise triggering event or events which made neoliberalism fashionable was different in each western country, in the case of USA it came down to passage of civil rights related legislation in the mid-to-late 1960s.

Yes, you heard that right. Neoliberalism, as an ideology, became mainstream in the USA only after it became obvious to the average white person that maintaining their relative superiority over non-whites through overt “legal” racism was no longer possible. It is also therefore not surprising the strongest popular support of neoliberal policies such as shredding the social safety net, job precarization, union busting etc have always been stronger in ex-slave owning southern states and those adjacent to them (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana) rather than those in the North East or the West Coast.

3] But why would a combination of racism and delusions of inherent superiority specifically enable the dominance of neoliberalism in the west? Why not fascism or some other form of majority totalitarianism? Well.. it comes down to the delusion of inherent racial superiority. In the post-WW2 era, almost nobody wanted to be seen as a fascist, nazi or overt racist. Those were crude and failed ideologies. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, appeared to offer average white people most of the benefits of racism and discrimination while appearing to be liberal and hip. Since even the most average and mediocre white person now saw himself or herself as insurmountably superior to non-whites, they deluded themselves into believing that neoliberalism would only further their dominance.

Of course, it is now obvious that things did not work that way. However, in the late 1980s to mid 1990s, it was very easy for the average white person in USA to believe that the rest of world would never catch up with them. Remember, the USSR had just collapsed and everyone and their dog was proclaiming the end of history. China and other Asian countries had not reached the level of industrialization we see today. It appeared the white americans supporting neoliberalism were set for their own 1000-year Reich. I should also mention that some of the most damaging neoliberal trends like job precarization and high stealth inflation (housing, medical, education) had still not hit white-collar workers.

It is therefore not surprising that many average white americans, blue and white-collar, thought that they would be the winners of a neoliberal order. I mean.. it appeared to work for them for the first 10-15 years. Also, it was far easier to explain away problems caused by neoliberalism when they affected non-whites and poorer white people. Furthermore, the initial large wave of indiscriminate financialization specifically the housing price bubble and easy access to credit allowed the majority to look past ugly emerging problems. All of this meant that average white americans were cheering on neoliberalism until the financial crisis of 2008. Of course, by then it was too late..

In a future post of this series, I will try to explore why neoliberalism became popular in other western countries- specifically those in western Europe. As you will see, american influence was only one of the factors that drove the rise of that ideology in those countries.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control

August 26, 2017 35 comments

A few months ago, I wrote a short series enumerating the many reasons why the democratic party, in its current form, has no worthwhile future. Some reasons, such as the nature of their core support base and institutional inertia, are systemic in nature. Others, like their obsession with promoting certain allegedly “social causes”, are a cover for the neo-liberal policies promoted by them. But a few do not fall neatly into either of these two categories. One of the best example from this category is the obsession of the democratic party establishment with implementing severely punitive gun control policies.

As some of my regular readers might remember, I have written many posts on why attempts at tight gun control are unworkable, futile and likely to backfire in more ways than at the ballot box. The very short version of those posts is that deaths due to guns in USA are largely the result of socio-economic factors (suicide, financial problems, lack of job security) and explicit government policies (“war on drugs”, abandoning poorer areas). To make a long story short, attempts at stricter gun control do not address the far larger and much more dangerous underlying systemic issues which drive the relatively high incidence of deaths by guns in USA.

However, time after time, we have seen the democratic party establishment try to use every newsworthy shooting to push for stricter gun regulations. Of course, we have also seen the democratic party lose election after election in many areas of the country during that period. As it stands today, the democratic party does not have control of any elected branch of the federal government and almost 2/3rds of state governments. The democratic party of today is so weak and impotent on the national stage that they cannot even properly exploit the ongoing train-wreck of the Trump presidency, which would otherwise be a god-send to a marginally competent opposition party.

Of course, there are many reasons why the democratic party has been on a downward path since the mid-1990s. Firstly, their embrace of neo-liberalism and its policies such as “free trade” and laissez-faire regulation of corporations which started during the Clinton era have antagonized a significant part of the population, especially in non-coastal states. Secondly, the leadership (and top cadre) of democratic party is full of people who either got in during the 1960s-1980s or are ivy-league credentialed C-grade actors who look ridiculous and phony in 2017. They would rather hold on to their premium berths on the ‘Titanic’ than change course and avoid the iceberg.

But none of this provides a satisfactory answer for why establishment democrats are anti-2nd amendment. I mean.. wouldn’t a political party in semi-permanent political wilderness prefer its supporters to be armed than not? Also, it is fairly well-known that taking an anti-gun stand was a factor in them losing the 2000, 20004 and 2016 presidential election- in addition to many more at the states level. So why persist in pushing a cause that does not make sense from the viewpoint of winning elections? And let us clear about something- politicians, regardless of their party affiliations and stated ideologies, are in to win power. Some are more corrupt and easily bought than others but basically all politicians compromise on their beliefs.

So how can you account for establishment democrats repeatedly pushing an electorally bad ideology? One theory I have seen being floated is that democrats think that decrease in overall rates of gun ownership will somehow translate into future success of their campaign to criminalize civilian ownership of firearms. While that might sound like a nice story, ground reality as measured by sales of guns and relaxation of rules and regulations surrounding gun ownership since 1994 suggest otherwise. It appears, then, that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was the high point of democratic success in legislating for greater gun control. It has been downhill for them since then.

Another theory, I have heard, suggests that the establishment democrat obsession with gun control is linked to institutional stagnation within the party. There is some truth to the idea that political parties whose establishment is led by people who are mentally in the 1980s and 1990s might try to maintain what they believe to be the status quo and keep pressing for more bad policies, especially if their positions within the organisation are secure from competition. But that does not explain why the somewhat younger establishment types (Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand etc) in that party are still pushing such disastrous ideas.

Well.. I have a theory that can explain the obsession of democrats with gun control. You see, it comes down to appealing to their core base of supporters and volunteers- to be more specific, the credentialed professional class. As I have said in some of previous posts, a lot of the odd behavior displayed by democratic party makes sense once you realize that its most important non-corporate supporters are people who owe their well-compensated livelihood to credentials obtained from “famous” educational institutions. It is also no secret that most of those who work for or volunteer at higher levels in that party have such socio-economic backgrounds.

But why would that translate into support for gun control? Why would such a socio-economic group, or class, be interested in gun control? Let me try to explain it in the nicest possible language.. never mind- because they are greedy and insecure parasites. The credentialed class (especially in USA) derives its income, livelihood and social status from thievery and extortion through law and rules. That is why doctors in USA makes much more money than other developed countries while not being any better than them. That is why tenured professors at large “famous” universities in USA can make so much extra money though side projects. That is why pretty much any credentialed or licensed professional makes more in USA than other developed countries.

The degree of parasitism displayed by the credentialed professional classes in USA is second only to outright legalized theft and extortion practiced by corporate entities. But why then are corporations not especially interested in gun control? Why the professional class but not corporations? The answer to that is simple- because corporations already have the full might of the state behind them. Credentialed professionals, on the other hand, are in that peculiar zone where they are visibly doing better than others in a rapidly impoverishing society but lack any special protection by the state. In other words, they can feel (if only on a subconscious level) that they will become targets for popular rage if the proverbial shit hits the fan.

And that is why the credentialed professional class, which is the 2nd most important constituency for democrats as well as the source of most of their party establishment cadre want to disarm “less deserving” poorer people. Parasites, you see, prefer hosts who are unable to stop the party. Credentialed professionals perceive the widespread ownership of guns as a threat to their cushy livelihoods which depend on theft and extortion via laws and regulations. However, unlike corporations, they are not powerful or singularly important enough to get special protection by the state.

Attempting to ban widespread ownership of guns, then, appears to be the second best option. And that is why the democratic establishment keeps on pursuing a policy that has brought it repeated electoral failure in parts of the country that are not New York or California. On a side note, I do not think that their obsession with gun control is going to change even if they perform poorly in the 2018 and 2020 elections. As long as they can still win a few coastal states, they will keep shooting themselves in the foot.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 23, 2017

August 23, 2017 Leave a comment

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

Beach Cuties in Front of the Sea and Sky: Aug 23, 2017 – Amateur beach cuties.

Pro Beach Cuties: Aug 23, 2017 – Pro cuties posing on the beach.

Pro Outdoor Cuties: Aug 23, 2017 – Pro cuties posing outdoors.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Censoring Speech on Internet is Always a Bad Idea: Aug 21, 2017

August 21, 2017 22 comments

Over the previous few days, many short-sighted idiots.. I mean people.. of varying fame on the internet and various social media platforms have been supporting attempts by various corporate monopolies and oligopolies to deplatform people and organisations with connections to the so-called ‘alt-right’. Let us, for a moment, ignore that the so-called ‘alt-right’ is actually a bunch of different groups with overlap in some parts of their individual ideologies but large (and often irreconcilable) differences in other parts. Let us, instead, focus on the far more important question which is as follows:

Should corporations, with or without state support, be allowed to censor speech on the internet?

In my opinion, giving corporations (of any type) such power, whether implicitly or explicitly, is a very bad idea. Now some of you might say- but.. but they are trying to censor Nazis. What is wrong with bending rules to marginalize Nazis or people who profess to believe in that ideology? The short answer is that censorship of speech is always a bad idea, even if the groups or individuals you are trying to censor are vile and loathsome. Furthermore, censorship of free speech or similar instance of rules and regulations based on extreme cases are almost always counterproductive in the longer run in more ways than one.

The longer answer requires us to first consider the context and history of such demands and the almost certain negative and counterproductive consequences of such actions.

1] Many famous or credentialed morons.. I mean experts.. like to claim that free speech never “actually existed” are in the same ideological basket as those who defend slavery and Jim Crow because “that is how people used to do things”. I could show you the stupidity of that logic by asking them why those credentialed sophists why they prefer to use functional flush toilets and drink purified and treated water when neither of those have existed for most of human history. The nature of what is possible and justifiable has more to do with feasibility rather than selective interpretations of tradition. For example- the majority of people in USA are now OK with gay marriage largely because conservative opponents of gay marriage tried to couch their opposition in terms of appeals to thoroughly discredited traditional norms surrounding marriage.

2] Any half-decent analysis of history suggests that attempts to suppress ideas because they clash with dominant culture of the day often results in those ideas gaining more exposure and respectability. As some of you know, a number of ideologies from Christianity in the Roman Empire to Nazism in Wiemer-era Germany were able gain significant public interest because of persistent attempts by the prevailing establishment to shut them down and persecute their members. Sites such as the Daily Stormer, Rebel Media and many right-wing internet forums and social media recently gained tons of public attention because of the many attempts of internet oligopolies to shut them down. Moreover, trying to censor the content on such sites is problematic because it is quickly reproduced on many others.

3] Why would any person with basic critical thinking skills trust large corporations or government officials- both of whom have no worthwhile public accountability to make subjective decisions that are impartial? Why would they? What motivation do they have to be fair and reasonable? Do you really think that the legal precedent gained by censoring these neo-Nazis won’t be used to censor anybody else who they do not like? Do you think that social movements from such as BLM and various labor unions will somehow never be subject to high-handed censorship? Also do you trust the law enforcement apparatus in USA will not misuse such precedent to further their abuse of groups which they already like to murder and imprison? If you still trust large corporations, government officials and law enforcement to behave ethically, I have a bridge to sell you.

4] Laws criminalizing explicit violent threats and intentional libel have been around for a very long time. Therefore, we do not require new laws and regulations to prosecute those who commit such acts, either in real life or on the internet. What is most troubling about attempts by internet oligopolies to censor unpopular online speech by hiding behind the “Nazi exception” is that they are going after ideas and ideologies which by themselves are not innately violent or libelous. For example- a racist shitbag who opines that whites are the “master race” is just stating what he or she believes. As long as the person in question is not making an explicit violent threat, he or she is just being an asshole. And one person’s asshole could be an other person’s philosopher.

5] Right-wing ideologies such Nazism and similar ethno-nationalistic movements tend to gain most of their support from those who feel disenfranchised by the established socio-political system of that day. There is a very good why Mussolini became successful in the chaos of post-WW1 Italy or why Hitler rocketed in popularity after the great depression caused mass unemployment in 1930-era Germany. Similarly the rise of right-wing fascistic movements in west-European countries during the late 1920s-1930s was due to a combination of mass unemployment, unresolved nationalism and entrenched political establishments who did not want to change the unsustainable status quo.

In other words, the rise of neo-Nazis and similar right-wing movements in USA is a symptom of people losing their faith in the system and elites who are currently running them. You cannot treat a serious systemic disease by addressing a few of its minor symptoms. I would go so far as to say that the current interest in censoring unpopular free speech is basically an admission by the establishment that they are either unwilling or unable to fix the larger problems of socio-economic inequality. It is the policy equivalent of trying to patch up a banged up car with duct tape because you cannot afford to, or are unwilling to, repair it.

To summarize: Attempts to censor free speech (especially the unpopular kind) by large corporations and government officials are, at best, short-sighted and futile attempts to address minor symptoms of much larger socio-economic problems. At worst, they will make those assholes more popular and respectable while simultaneously abusing resultant legal precedents against a variety of relatively peaceful social movements and individuals. Therefore, in my opinion, it is far better for us a society to let a few assholes say what they want, even if they end up trying to test the boundaries of such freedoms. Large corporations, government officials, and “law enforcement” pose far larger risks and threats for the well-being and future of most people than a few idiots in office-cuck attires parading around some city with citronella-scented tiki torches.

Will write more on this topic in a future post, depending on your replies to this one.

What do you think? Comments?

YT Clip: ‘Alt-Right’ Similar to SturmAbteilung (SA) than Nazis (NSDAP)

August 17, 2017 15 comments

In the last few days, we have heard a lot about how the ‘alt-right’ in USA are like an american version of the Nazis. However as the YT clip embedded later on in this post correctly points out, the ‘alt-right’ is much more similar to the Sturmabteilung (SA) than the Nazi party. The main point made in the clip is that the Nazi Party (NSDAP) was far more single-minded and centralized than its paramilitary wing aka the Sturmabteilung (SA).

But first a bit of context..

While the Nazi Party (NSDAP) was fairly centralized and favored by the elite and bourgeoisie, its paramilitary arm (SA) drew most of its membership from the working class. At its peak, the SA enjoyed a membership of three millions- largely fueled by the high rates of underemployment and unemployment among working class men (often veterans of WW1) in Weimar-era Germany. In fact, there is considerable historical evidence to suggest that many members of the SA had strong socialist sympathies.

This phenomenon, colorfully labelled as the Beefsteak Nazi (brown on the outside, red on the inside), was quite widespread among the ranks of the SA. The socialist leanings of the SA leadership was one of the main reasons behind the so-called “Night of the Long Knives” in 1934, which culminated in the killing of the top leaders of SA including Ernst Röhm.

Another point made in the YT clip is that current situation in USA has a peculiar resemblance to the street brawls between members of the SA (right) and various Communist parties (left) such as those occurred during the Weimar republic. It also very briefly touches on the very real possibility of this developing into some sort of intra-national conflict, which is kinda like a civil war but between political factions in same geographical locations as opposed to distinct regions.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 17, 2017

August 17, 2017 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual later today or tomorrow.

Drawings of Punished Cuties: Aug 9, 2017 – Cuties getting spankings and related punishments.

Beach Cuties with Handbags: Aug 16, 2017 – Beach cuties walking around with handbags.

Cuties on Boats: Aug 17, 2017 – Mostly amateur cuties lounging around on boats.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

How Racism and Magical Thinking Could Lead to War with North Korea

August 14, 2017 13 comments

In my previous post on this topic, I pointed out how a combination of factors ranging from the nature of the North Korean regime and institutional attitudes in USA towards that country to human behavior under conditions of less-than-perfect information could start a war between North Korea and USA. Exploring this topic does, however, require us to confront some obvious, but rarely talked about, issues surrounding how the USA (as a country) views itself and interacts with the rest of the world.

Have you ever considered the possibility that most interactions of the USA (as a nation) with other countries are driven by some combination of racism and magical thinking? Well.. if you haven’t, you should consider that possibility.

Now that we have let the proverbial cat out of the bag, let us talk about why things ended up that way. The major reasons behind why the USA (as a nation) sees itself in a certain way come down to accidents of geography and history. Firstly, the outlook of the nation and its institutions was powerfully influenced by a historically long period of relative geographical isolation- both from overt influence by other countries and from the consequences of their own actions.

Simply put, the combination of relative geographical isolation until after WW2 and weak neighbors made it possible for successive governments in USA to do pretty much what they wanted in their country and immediate geographical neighborhood without having to worry about consequences of their actions. The effect of having weak geographical neighbors for most of american history gave american institutions (and the people within them) a belief that they were somehow the ‘chosen’ supermen destined to rule the world.

Perhaps most importantly, other countries in the last two hundred years which could have kicked american ass in military conflicts lay across the atlantic ocean- in an era where it took weeks to days to reach american shores. This state of affairs persisted until ICBMs and nuclear weapons were developed. In other words, the american psyche (institutional and individual) are largely the product of an era where they lacked serious or existential threats.

And this brings us to the second, and somewhat related reason for the mindset of american institutions and its ruling class. The lack of militarily strong neighbors, relative geographical isolation and the effects of various industrial revolutions resulted in a fairly prosperous country with only one significant military conflict (aka the Civil war) prior the modern era. It is also worth noting that the USA was largely an isolationist country until after it got involved in WW2.

To put it in other words, the lack of large-scale deaths due to wars on american soil is seen by many in that country as the normal state of affairs. Even supposedly “intelligent” people in various american governments throughout history have never been able to fully comprehend what such levels of casualties do to nations and societies. For example- you cannot really understand a lot of post-WW2 west European history without considering the effects of the many tens of millions killed in WW1 and WW2.

To make matters more complicated, the american empire as we know it today is almost exclusively a post-WW2 phenomena. During that time it has fought many wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) without winning against anyone larger than a Caribbean island. Of course, many millions in those countries (and tens of thousands of Americans) were killed due to those wars gave american military and policy elite the spurious belief that they could kill tons of non-white people in other parts of the world without any consequences.

That lasted till Sep 11, 2001 when it became obvious that a ragtag bunch of people with limited financial and military resources could cause hundreds of billions of immediate damage to the USA- not to mention the trillions spent on subsequent wars which the USA has since lost, even if it can cannot admit it publicly. Maybe that is why that particular day has attained so much symbolic importance in the american psyche.

And this brings me to the question of what will happen when North Korea performs further missile and nuclear tests.

As many of you must have heard by now- a few days ago, Kim Jong-Un has threatened to test a few IRBMs such that their dummy warheads would hit the waters off Guam. The american government reacted by threatening everything from preemptive strikes to full-scale war, including the use of nuclear weapons. They have also tried to pacify the american public by telling them fairy tales such as THAAD and other ABM systems being able to intercept all those missiles before their dummy warheads reach Guam.

But what happens if NK actually fires those missiles and THAAD and other ABM fail to prevent those dummy warheads from landing in the waters off Guam? As it stands right now, there are about 200k american citizens in South Korea- most of them in and around Seoul. A similar or larger number also reside in the greater Tokyo area- which is within the reach of even the oldest and most numerous North Korean missiles.

It would be foolish to believe that the NK regime would not use some of their 30-60 nukes against both those targets if they felt that they were going down. I mean, what do they have to lose in that scenario? Also, they are more likely to use them first if they believe that USA will use them. We cannot also discount the possibility that any interruption in communication between the regime and its missile forces might result in lower level commanders deciding to use them.

I wonder if enough people in current american administration have thought about consequences of even a limited nuclear exchange between the three east-Asian countries involved in this bizarre game of chicken. Do they fully comprehend the results of the South Korean and Japanese governments, which have been aligned with USA since end of WW2, being unable to stop millions of their citizens from dying or getting injured with nuclear weapons? Do they think that any defense arrangements they have with those and other governments will stand after such an outcome?

An even more unpleasant outcome is possible if even a couple nuke tipped ICBMs land on large metropolitan areas on the west coast. Do you realize the long-term psychological and financial effects of even 2-3 nukes with a 20-50 kiloton output going off over those metropolitan areas. Apart from a couple of hundred thousand deaths and injuries, such strikes will have large and irreversible negative effects on the american economy- not to mention politics, psyche and national cohesion. Sure.. you can nuke NK all you want after they hit you first (which they are very likely to), but the damage is already done.

The most important question, then, should be: Is escalating this stupid conflict really worth all the potential risks and downsides?

What do you think? Comments?

Darkly Humorous YT Clip from 2013 about “Wolfenstein Fan Clubs”

August 13, 2017 5 comments

As almost every single one of you might have heard by now, a ‘Unite the Right Rally‘ on Aug 11th and 12th 2017 in Charlottesville ended up being quite the shitshow. One woman died and 20 more people were injured when an ‘alt-right’ asshole ran them over with his car. Shortly after that, two cops died in a helicopter crash near the site of the rally and counter-protests. Anyway.. with all the usual statements, noises and opinions about the incidents which occurred over that weekend- it is worth remembering something.

Most Americans have a poor grasp of history, especially if events in question occurred in other countries. Perhaps that is why dumbfucks who have never left the midwest feel affinities for ideologies as repulsive as Nazism and Fascism. And maybe that is why pudgy underemployed white guys in golf shirts and khakis carrying citronella scented Tiki torches fancy themselves as saviors of the “white race”. While Trump’s victory in Nov 2016 did give an extra boost to such ideologies, it is also true that historical ignorance, racism in all its forms and interest in fascism are as American as apple pie.

It does not help that allegedly “respectable” main stream media outfits such as the NYT, Atlantic, WP have given tons of free publicity to douchebags like Richard Spencer. The ‘alt-right’ as it exists today is largely an attempt to repackage a number of disreputable older ideologies from fascism to Nazism along with a big helping of american-style racism. To be clear, I am against censoring free speech- even if it is extremely offensive. Having said that, it is also necessary to vigorously critique (and mock) those who express their support for such ideologies.

What do you think? Comments?

My Thoughts on the “Google Memo” and James Damore: Aug 9, 2017

August 9, 2017 8 comments

It appears that many of you want to hear my opinions about that now infamous “Google Memo” and its author- who has now been identified as James Damore. Well.. I had considered writing about this issue a couple of days ago, but thought it was best to wait until the guy at the center of this latest culture war controversy represented himself though an interview or two and maybe a detailed blog post. As it stands today, he seems to have given interviews to two people in what many would consider the ‘alt-right’.

In my opinion, who he gives an interview to at this time is not particularly relevant- since the Mass Media and SJWs of all persuasions are going out of their way to demonize and shut him out. This is not to say that I agree with every single word in his memo. However, the right to free speech (which I strongly support) is more important than the right of SJWs and other morons to feel “safe” from speech which they might find “offensive”. As long-time readers of my blog know, I am not fond of SJWs or the underlying motivations of their behavior.

As I have said in previous posts, SJW-ism is largely driven by the desire to show moral superiority (and perhaps make a quick buck) under neoliberalism. The current “intellectual” underpinnings of the slowly imploding neoliberal order do not allow real large-scale social problems to be addressed, and therefore activists and scammers spend their energy at promoting really small-scale causes such as transgender rights and the right for muslim women to wear a hijab while simultaneously ignoring endemic poverty, joblessness and overall misery seen in western neoliberal countries- especially the USA.

To put it another way, SJWs and their boosters in Mass Media are more interested in trying to make you feel ashamed about some video game you enjoy than push for universal healthcare. They would rather spend their efforts on trying to make you say that certain women comedians are talented and “beautiful” than lead a campaign for fully tax-funded university education. It is also no secret that many supposedly “liberal” TV personalities who pretend to care about social issues are just scammers making money out of misdirected outrage that is safe for their corporate backers.

So now you know where I stand on the issue of free speech, SJWs and Corporate Mass Media. But what about the actual contents of that memo or James Damore? Well.. this is the part that some of you might not like, because what I think about both of them is a bit more nuanced than my views on SJWs and Corporate Mass Media.

Firstly, the basic idea proposed in that memo- namely that women and men’s brains are not “wired” the same way is essentially correct. Now this does not mean that there is no overlap between the “wiring” of the two groups. In fact, there is far more overlap than many would be willing to accept. Having said that, you can make the claim that women as a group will perform better at some tasks than men as a group and vice versa.

This does not however translate into differences in gross intelligence or other large-scale abilities. As many of you know, women now make up almost half of doctors, lawyers and (in many countries) engineers and they seem to do as well as their male counterparts in these vocations. You might also recall that even 50 years, it was rare for women to be admitted in these field because of their supposed lack of intellectual ability. So clearly, all the beliefs which kept women out of intellectually demanding fields in previous eras were wrong.

Furthermore, psychological studies (which is largely made up bullshit) was once used as a justification to treat non-whites as subhuman. Today we are largely accept the idea that asians (both east- and south-) are very good at math and other STEM subjects and account for a disproportionate number of employees of technology heavy corporations and institutions. However as late as the 1960s, many prominent white scientists still believed that Asians were “low IQ” without any worthwhile ability for scientific or original thinking. How the tables have turned now..

And this brings me to what I think about the most significant, but overlooked, part of that memo. Though the document has been blasted for being overtly sexist, it is more about the corporate and office culture at Google in particular and corporate america in general. The guy is complaining about how the managerial and HR types at Google has basically stopped listening to opinions which diverge ever so slightly from their fashionable and “naturally correct” consensus. He is describing an organisation where the loudest and most manipulative faddists carry the day.

In short, he is describing an organisational culture which has more in common with royal courts, politburos and other large corporations that are dominated by clever and sociopathic power seekers than those who make the system function properly. I, for one, am not surprised that a large and unwieldy corporation such as Google has now more in common with other corporations and institutions with a similar head count and complex hierarchies than what it was a decade ago.

The fact that institutional bias at Google seems to be based in one fashionable type interpretation of the social “sciences” is just a quirk of the times we live in. Some of you might recall that many large corporations of yesteryears- such as Kodak, IBM, HP, Ford, GM, Merck too used have their own and equally well-known institutional biases based in conservative values or whatever corporate bullshit was fashionable at that moment. In fact, I wrote about inevitable emergence of such dysfunction in large institutions about six years ago.

Anyway, to summarize this post- what James Damore wrote in that memo has more to do with emergent dysfunction in large impersonal institutions than sexism. I would go far as to say that there is little, if any, sexism in that document. The very fact that he is being attacked for the basically nonexistent sexism in his memo says a lot about our contemporary media culture and society. Also, it says a lot about where Google is going.. or not going.

Might write more about this story depending on comments and future developments.

What do you think? Comments?

North Korea Launching ICBMs at USA is Far More Likely than Believed

August 5, 2017 19 comments

Continuing on from my previous, and subsequently shown to be correct, analysis of North Korea’s ICBM and Nuke programs- let me pose a question that many of you either do not want to think about or believe to be impossible.

Would North Korean launch nuclear weapon tipped ICBMs at large metropolitan areas in USA?

Notice that I used the word “Would” rather than “Could” since we already know that they can launch missiles carrying such payloads at metropolitan area sized targets in continental USA aka the ‘lower 48’. In other words, we have already established that they have the capacity to launch missiles which can drop a warhead of somewhere between 1-1.5 tons on large city sized targets in USA.

Also, as some of you might remember from a few months ago, they can build nuclear weapons with a yield of somewhere between 20-50 kt. While their device is more likely to be a boosted fission bomb rather than a “true” thermonuclear bomb– that difference is largely irrelevant when used against largely civilian targets. I mean.. do you really think a device with a 50 kt yield will be any less disruptive and shocking in its effects on a metropolitan area than one with a 200 kt yield?

And this brings me to the main question posed in this post- how likely are they to use such weapons against USA given the almost inevitable consequences of using them in that manner. But first, let us disabuse ourselves of the stupid belief that the North Korean regime is irrational or incompetent. That regime, is if anything, supremely rational and very aware of its own limitations and abilities.

Their decision to aggressively develop ICBMs and nuclear weapons within the previous decade is very rational since USA is only capable of overthrowing regimes which lack the capability to hit back with nuclear weapons. Deposing Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and all those “color” revolutions were possible only because those leaders did not possess the means to deliver a nuclear weapon onto a major american city.

But how does any of this make North Korea successfully launching nuclear tipped ICBMS at metropolitan ares in USA more likely than most people would want to believe? Aren’t all those rational people in the North Korean regime afraid of the almost inevitable nuclear retaliation by USA? Shouldn’t that by itself make such an event almost impossible?

Well.. in a rational world, this assumption would be correct and the probability that North Korea would launch ICBMs against USA would be basically zero. However we do not live in a rational world and the other party to this conflict, namely the USA, has shown a general inability to make rational and consistent decisions in the sphere of international relations for some time now.

The general inability of USA to make rational and consistent decisions on international, and increasingly national, matters is due to a numbers of interacting factors. Firstly, various factions of the ruling classes no longer share common goals with each other and there is a deficiency of centralized authority. It is therefore very easy to find instances of two, or more factions, working at cross purposes- something that was rather uncommon even two decades ago.

Secondly, USA is a declining superpower in a world which can no longer support superpowers. There was a time in the 1950s, part of the 1960s and maybe part of the 1990s when the USA came close to dominating the world- but that time is over and the world has become too multipolar for us to go back to such a time. However a lot of the ruling class factions have either not gotten that message or seem to be ignoring it.

Thirdly, a majority of the ruling class (all factions) come from what I call an intellectually and culturally incestuous background. In other words, most people in each faction lived in the same cities, went to same schools and universities and for the lack of a better word- do not venture outside their little bubbles. They talk the same, eat the same, drink the same, fuck the same and most problematically- think the same. Unfortunately, their bubbles have little, to no, connection with reality.

And this brings me to the subject of bad strategic and military decisions- or more precisely, why “credentialed” leaders tend to make the worst decisions and strategic mistakes. While there are many individual reasons for this phenomena, the overarching “meta” explanation is as follows: Decision making by members of an incestuous elite is largely driven by the need to impress and dominate their peers while trying to maintain the status quo, rather than solve the problem at hand.

As far as the topic of this post is concerned, that translates into doing more of the same in seemingly new and fashionable ways. So, the establishment in USA is going to try newer sanctions, more bluster about preemptive military strikes, more “successful” tests of ineffective anti-ballistic missiles. In other words, they will keep on doing all the things that have never worked. They will however never attempt something as trivial as unconditional talks with that regime to address its real concerns.

But how does any of this significantly increase the chances of North Korea launching nukes at american cities?

Well.. it comes down to who developed these weapons and for what end. See, the north korean regime developed them to ensure its own survival and continuance. These weapons are useful to the regime if their possession keeps USA away. However they also know that they have far fewer weapons than USA and if push comes to shove, using them immediately to inflict retaliatory damage is far more preferable to waiting for USA to definitively hit them- perhaps with nukes.

It is pretty easy to see how the proverbial ‘fog of war’ and mutual provocations increase to a level where the side with fewer nukes might be tempted to use them first. I mean.. if you are going down anyway why not take your opponent with you? As I pointed out before, the nukes and ICBMs are meant to ensure survival of North Korean regime- so it perfectly logical to use them if they think they have no realistic way out.

While this might seem as fairly straight forward logic to even the casual external observer, the vast majority of “credentialed” elite and decision makers in USA seem to believe that something like what I just described above is impossible. They are simply unwilling to even consider the very real possibility that North Korean nukes could hit a few major american cities resulting in deaths of millions. Instead they would rather retreat to their bubbles where they are exceptional, racially superior and omnipotent and everyone around them believes in the same shit.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 3, 2017

August 3, 2017 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual later today or tomorrow.

Tan Lined Cuties: Jul 30, 2017 – Cuties with nice tan lines near, or on, the beach.

Drawings of Spanked Cuties: Jul 30, 2017 – Drawings of curvy cuties getting spanked.

Thickish Cuties: Jul 31, 2017 – Thickish and curvy cuties posing indoors.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized