Archive

Archive for April, 2018

NSFW Links: Apr 29, 2018

April 29, 2018 Leave a comment

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

Wet Beach Cuties: Apr 23, 2018 – Wet cuties hanging around at the beach.

Amateur Doggystyled Cuties: Apr 29, 2018 – Amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Vintage Kanye West: “George Bush Doesnt Care About Black People”

April 25, 2018 3 comments

As many of you must have heard by now, Kanye West posted some tweets earlier today in which he expressed a measured degree of support for Donald Trump. As expected, every corporate media outlet and hordes of SJWs on twitter are trying to portray him as some sort of dangerous and unbalanced idiot. Then again, this would not be the first time the corporate media was upset about something Kanye West said about politics or politicians.

Here is the famous clip from 2005 where Kanye gives one probably the most succinct (and highly unexpected) analysis of the policies of Bush43 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Some of you might also remember that slavish corporate media outlets were highly critical of him at that time. Ironically, his televised comments went on to open the floodgates for widespread and open public criticism of the many failings of Bush43 administration.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on Alex Minassian and the Toronto Van Attack

April 24, 2018 32 comments

Yesterday a guy known as Alex Minassian drove a rented van on the sidewalk along Yonge Street in Toronto, killing at least 10 people and injuring about 15 more. He later tried to get killed by confronting the cops. However Canadian cops are nowhere as trigger happy as the american counterparts and in the end he was arrested without incident. Since incidents such as these are rather unusual in Canada, it is worth looking into why an otherwise nondescript guy studying computer science at a local community college decided to do something usually associated with religious-inspired terrorism.

1] Let us talk about the first and most obvious question that came into the mind of many people when they first heard about this incident- namely, was he a Muslim? Well.. given his surname, it is almost certain he is Armenian. As some of you might know, Armenians are unabashedly and almost exclusively Christian with most of them being of the Armenian Apostolic branch of the Church. While you do infrequently come across Armenians who converted to religions other than Christianity, it is rather uncommon. So.. ya, the guy almost certainly did not run over all those people because some Saudi-born mullah told him to do so.

2] One of the less publicized and “newsworthy” part of this story is that he was taking courses related to IT and programming at a well-known local community college. It seems that he was even listed as the developer in more than one app, including one to locate parking spots in Toronto– and yes, I can see the irony. To be clear, the guy may have issues with being shy and withdrawn when growing up- but he most certainly has a higher than average intelligence. Also a new report which showed the house he lived in suggests that the guy (or his parents) were reasonably well off.

3] And this brings us to some news reports, which I first saw late yesterday, claiming that he had posted on Facebook just before the rampage about being an ‘incel’ and being inspired by Elliot Roger’s 2014 killing spree around Santa Barbara. As I have said in older posts (link 1, link 2, link 3), the ‘supreme gentleman’ probably had a far bigger cultural impact than many people are willing to believe. While I did initially consider such a connection sketchy and likely a prank perpetrated by the good people on 4chan and 8chan, the evidence stacking up since yesterday suggests that it was the likely reason for his rampage.

4] Which brings me to an interesting question about his likely motivations. You see.. prostitution in Canada, though technically not legal, is very widespread (especially in large metros), openly advertised, relatively inexpensive and fairly safe. The guy could easily have easily chosen between thousands of escorts, paid somewhere between 200-350 Canadian dollars per hour, and had satisfying sex with some pretty hot women. The question, then, is whether he availed himself of these services or not. The guy was clearly not dead broke and wanted female sexual companionship. So did he or did he not?

5] Another important question is whether he was looking for something between sexual companionship by the hour. I suspect that he wanted something beyond casual paid sex, specifically attention from and adoration by at least one woman he was fucking. While I personally do not understand the insipid and worthless ego boosts that some men seem to get from such bullshit, it still seems to be an issue for some men. I have always wondered if men with borderline autism or similar neuro-atypical stuff are especially prone to seek such validation from women.

6] The lack of a manifesto or some sort of public explanation by him is also a bit peculiar, especially since the guy was fairly proficient with computers. I mean.. he could have easily posted a written or video manifesto in a manner that would ensure its automatic release to a large audience a few hours after his rampage. So did he write or make a video about his motivations? What about postings to forums frequented by tech-savvy NEETs? Also what drove him to go on that rampage yesterday, rather than say the day before that or the previous month or previous year? In other words, what was the specific trigger for this rampage.

Will write more on this topic based on further revelations and reader responses.

What do you think? Comments?

Thoughts on Kim Jong-un’s Motivations Behind Wanting to Meet Trump

April 20, 2018 9 comments

With the corporate media fixating on non-issues such as Comey’s recent book, the Mueller fishing expedition, Stormy Daniels latest BS claims and the most hilarious photo of Michael Cohen, it is not easy for many people in USA to be aware of the world beyond their borders. Also, as they say, nobody has gone broke underestimating the intelligence of american public. With that in mind, let us talk about an apparently unusual recent development in the state of relations between DPRK and USA. In case you missed it, the most important words in that sentence are ‘apparently unusual’- for reasons you shall see later on in this post.

Now, I am sure that at least some of you must have wondered about what factors were behind the sudden improvement in state of relations between DPRK and ROK (South Korea) since just before the 2018 winter Olympics. Why have relations between these two countries experienced a significant positive shift since the beginning of this year? And what does any of this have to do with the recent diplomatic overtures DPRK is making towards USA?

As regular readers know, I have written more than a few articles in the past few months about DPRK, especially its ICBM and nuclear weapon program. One of the more recent articles written by me on that topic made an interesting claim about how ICBMS and Nukes finally got Kim Jong-un the international respect he (and his predecessors) have always wanted. In that post, I also pointed out that Kim Jong-un’s recent interest in dialogue with ROK and USA were actually quite predictable since he has, in the past, repeatedly talked about his desire for such talks after DPRK acquired nukes and reliable ICBMs.

In fact, the stance of DPRK on talks with South Korea and USA have been pretty consistent over the years. They have also been very clear about what they want from any such deal. To summarize, DPRK wants a guarantee of security and non-aggression from USA and South Korea in addition to lifting of all economic sanctions against them in exchange for any deal which requires them to freeze their nuclear and missile program. The funny thing is such a deal with DPRK was reached and almost implemented in 1994. But american hubris and delusions of omnipotence ended up sabotaging what was probably the best (and only) chance of DPRK giving up its nuclear weapons.

The failure of that deal under Clinton42 and being labelled as part of ‘the axis of evil’ by Bush43 did however teach DPRK an important lesson. They realized that any deal made with the USA without the means for to independently enforce it was not worth the paper on which it was written. That is why they decided to keep on developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Development of these weapon systems reached a new urgency once Kim Jong-un formally became the head of state and the results of that drive are plainly visible. To make a long story short, nuclear weapons and ICBMs are the means by which DPRK can enforce any agreements it makes with USA and South Korea.

But haven’t we all heard some noise about DPRK willing to denuclearize soon? Well.. you heard wrong. DPRK is just repeating what it has always said, which is that it willing to participate in talks about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The precise wording does change a bit every time they make that offer, however the general gist of their demands remains the same. In short, they will denuclearize only if guaranteed safety from future military attacks or invasion by USA or South Korea. The problem with that condition is that USA has proved to be a completely unreliable party to such agreements in the past, with DPRK and more recently with countries in the Middle-East.

It does not help that no country has renounced self-developed nuclear weapons once they have built more than a few of them. Nor does the american treatment of countries which did not have them (Iraq) or stopped developing them (Libya) inspire any confidence. So what is Kim Jong-un trying to achieve by meeting with Trump? Also, is this meeting really about Trump or USA? Some jingoistic idiots in USA think that Kim Jong-un expressing a desire to meet Trump is the result of “economic sanctions working”, “China finally getting tired of DPRK” or some other assorted masturbatory fantasy common among older white men. The reality, once again, is quite different.

The proposed meeting with Trump is largely about chipping away at the alliance between South Korea and USA. And here is why.. For starters, the ruling class in DPRK have a very good and objective understanding of how the establishment in USA works or does not work. They know that the deep state in USA is incapable of doing things other than more war, economic sanctions or attempting to rape the economies of other countries. They understand that any treaty with USA without independent means to enforce it is worthless. They also understand that anything short of dissolving the current system in DPRK will not be acceptable to the deep state in USA- and that is not going to happen.

They have figured out that different parts of the government in USA, such as the legislatures, can and will derail any agreement just because the D-grade actors within them like to “act tough” for the credulous idiots who voted for them. They are fully aware of the extent to which decisions made by legislators are controlled by corporate donors, especially from the military-industrial complex. In other words, DPRK understands that anything short of complete and utter capitulation by them is unacceptable to most cliques in the american government. But, they also know that many in South Korea are willing to sign an agreement with far more realistic terms.

So how do you drive a permanent wedge between South Korea and USA? Well.. you start by developing the capacity to reliably nuke large metropolitan areas in mainland USA. Acquisition of such a capacity by DPRK makes any serious conventional or nuclear assault on it by USA and South Korea basically impossible. It also makes significant american intervention in any armed conflict between DPRK and South Korea far less likely than before. But that by itself is not enough to drive a wedge between them, which is why you require the second part.

Then next step for driving a wedge between them requires DPRK to put forth conditions for an agreement whose terms are perfectly acceptable to South Korea but will never be accepted by USA (even if they initially appear to be willing). We should therefore see the latest diplomatic overtures by Kim Jong-un as part of a strategy where he offers basically everything necessary for South Korea to accept the agreement but with just enough sticking points to be rejected by USA. That way, Kim Jong-un appears as the stable and reasonable person willing to deal with other countries such as South Korea while USA look like some out-of-touch old white guy still living in the 1950s.

But why do such something like this, if it is almost certain to fail? After all, South Korea is unlikely to sign an agreement without the explicit approval of USA.. right? But here is the thing.. DPRK understands that and actually wants that outcome because of what such a public failure will lead to. While South Korea will not sign an agreement without explicit american consent at this moment, it might very well have to do within a couple of years. Face it.. DPRK with its nukes and ICBMs is going to magically disappear if you wait long enough and South Korea understands that only too well. They also know that some stupid miscalculation by USA (especially the Trump administration) in near future could get them nuked regardless of who started the conflict.

In summary, the long-term survival and strategic interests of South Korea are no longer in line with american policy towards that region. DPRK understands this inherent contradiction and is cleverly using it to split the close alliance between South Korea and USA. To them, the proposed meeting with Trump is therefore just an opportunity to decisively show South Koreans and the world that they are far more reasonable than USA. They also know that the sheer amount of vitriol against Trump by the deep state in USA will cancel out any reasonable move made by him in such a meeting.

What do you think? Comments?

Michael Cohen is the Non-Fictional Version of Barry Zuckerkorn from AD

April 17, 2018 3 comments

In the past, more than one commentator has noted the peculiar similarities between members of the Trump family and his successful presidential campaign to characters and the story arc of the cult comedy TV series “Arrested Development“. It now seems that the usual similarities between reality and that TV series have stepped up one notch within the last few days. In fact, one of the central plotlines of the 4th season was the Bluth family trying to resurrect their family fortunes by pushing for the construction of a wall between USA and Mexico which was sold to racist voters as a way to “keep those Mexicans out”.

Some of you might remember the character of Barry Zuckerkorn, played by Henry Winkler, who is the loyal but highly incompetent lawyer of the Bluth family. One of the running gags in that series was that Barry (with a few exceptions) somehow always managed to make problems worse than they were prior to his involvement. Enter Michael Cohen, Trump’s long-time personal attorney, who has managed to make the whole situation around making payouts to women who claimed to have affairs with Trump in the past, far more problematic than necessary. Most of you would agree that the overall similarities between the two are considerable.

and here is a YT clip of one of the very few times his character displays competence, on a very topical issue.

What do you think? Comments?

Bush and Trump: History Repeats.. First as Tragedy, Then as Farce

April 14, 2018 8 comments

Presented without comment in response to the yesterday’s developments in Syria.

What do you think? Comments?

Factors Determining Russian Response to Current Provocations by USA

April 13, 2018 4 comments

As most of you must have heard by now, clever idiots belonging to the deep state in USA, UK and maybe France want to “punish” the current Syrian government for allegedly using “chemical weapons” against civilians in some part of Ghouta. In addition to the timing of this alleged “attack” being highly suspicious, it is worthwhile to note that all “evidence” presented so far has come from an extremist Islamist group funded, armed and trained by the USA and UK. In fact there is good reason to believe that this particular “attack” was either stage-manged by UK, including the fact that this extremist group was on the payroll of certain Sunni gulf states with the tacit approval of UK and USA.

Then there is the multi-billion dollar question as to why the Syrian army would use a chemical weapon as ineffective as chlorine gas (and just once) in the conflict for Eastern Ghouta which it effectively won yesterday. Also, why is the allegedly “humanitarian” anglo-american west are so desperately willing to believe a group which openly believes in killing non-Sunni Muslims? And what about the continued support for Saudi Arabia by the “west” in its ongoing genocidal (and unsuccessful) war in Yemen. And let us not forget all the civilian deaths that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan due to actions of the “humanitarian west”, though they ended up losing both wars.

Clearly, this reeks of extremely high levels of bullshit and solipsism on part of the west. But a more detailed discussion on that topic is best left for a future post. Instead we will focus on how Russia, which is helping the Syrian government and has a legitimate military presence within that country, would respond to any large-scale military attack by the anglo-american countries against Syria and its own troops stationed in that country. More importantly, is it possible to predict how bad things will get if the anglo-american west is stupid enough to do something along those lines.

To understand the factors which will determine Russia’s response to any half-assed military adventurism in Syria by the anglo-american west, it is worthwhile to start with a quick lesson in history.

1] Most of you must be aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. OK, it wasn’t so much a crisis over Soviet missiles in Cuba as it was the USA throwing a fit that USSR was doing to it what it had done to the USSR. More specifically, installing Soviet nuclear-tipped IRBMs in Cuba by Khrushchev was a response to USA installing similar IRBMs in Tukey. After much posturing, a back-channel agreement between USA and USSR was reached that resulted in USSR withdrawing its missiles from Cuba in exchange for USA doing the same for its missiles in Turkey in the next few months- and global nuclear war was averted. At least that is where most historians in the west seem to stop.

So why is this incident relevant to the current events in Syria? Well.. it comes down to public perception of who “won” in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the effect of that perception on internal party politics within USSR. To make a long story short, secrecy surrounding the back-channel deal made between Khrushchev and JFK made the former look like the loser even though he achieved almost everything he wanted. The public loss of face was a major factor behind Khrushchev’s ouster in 1964. All of his successors, up to Yeltsin, took great effort to make sure that they would never be publicly perceived as weak in face of USA. You can be certain that Putin knows his Russian history very well.

2] Part of the reason that the Cuban Missile Crisis ended the way it did was that USSR in the early-1960s possessed significantly fewer long-range nuclear weapons than USA. Remember that this was the era when ICBMS and nuclear submarines carrying SLBMs was brand new technology and most long-range nuclear strokes were supposed to carried out by large bombers like the B-52 and Tu-95. Also spy satellite technology was in its infancy. All those issues were fixed by the late 1960s and since then there has always been a rough parity of nuclear warheads and delivery systems between USA and USSR and now Russia.

But what does that mean for any Russian response to nay large-scale anglo-american military action in Syria? Well.. a lot. For one, Putin in 2018 is not constrained by the limitations experienced by Khrushchev in 1962 while dealing with USA. Also, unlike his predecessors he has real leverage over many NATO members since Russia is a major supplier of gas and oil to those countries. It helps that he has been quite successful at nudging Turkey out of the NATO alliance. The fact is that “sanctions” or no sanctions, many NATO countries need to purchase Russian oil and gas (in addition to some other commodities) to keep functioning.

3] And this brings us to the issue of the almost continuous low-grade economic and PR warfare that the decrepit anglo-american west has been trying to wage against Russia since at least 2012. As I have stated in previous posts, I have a theory that many elites (of all countries but especially the west) lack a theory of mind. In other words, they believe that people all over the world think and act the same way for the same reasons. That is why these sad idiots believe that economic sanctions against Russia or “oligarchs close to Putin” would make him more amenable to USA. The events of the last few years have not supported this belief- to put it mildly.

As I wrote in a previous post, the military capacity of Russia is far stronger than its GDP (as measured in USD) would suggest. In fact, I wrote a short series on why comparing incomes and GDP across countries in USD has no relation to reality. My point is that all the “oligarchs” in Russia derive that current status from closeness to political power. Unlike USA, its is political leaders who control rich people in countries such as Russia and China. Consequently, their policies are far more insulated from corporate profit margins than in USA and other western countries.

It helps that the very obvious and overt campaign to demonize, humiliate and hurt average Russians since 2008 by the anglo-american west has increased support for Putin. Many of them also remember how oligarchs supported by the west looted and raped Russia in the 1991-2000 era, under the guise of “economic reform and liberalization”. Then there is the even bigger issue of world trade and commerce being increasingly centered around Asia rather than the stagnant and decaying societies of North America and western Europe.

To summarize, Russia and Putin are in a much better position to respond in kind to any large-scale anglo-american military adventures in Syria than most people realize. They also figured out, some years ago, that the anglo-american west is not (and was never) interested in an equal relationship with Russia. My guess is that they will make sure that their inevitable response to such stupid adventurism is seen as a response rather than as adventurism. Also, they might respond to the anglo-american west in more than one part of the world.

What do you think? Comments?