Archive

Archive for May, 2019

2019 and 2020 Will be Much Bigger Shitshows than 2015 and 2016

May 30, 2019 17 comments

As regular readers know, I often make predictions on a number of topics which later turn out to be right (or pretty close) with a high rate of success. More importantly, I am able to accurately identify the underlying dynamics, trends and forces responsible for the ultimate outcomes. Now let me make another seemingly obvious prediction, but with far greater insight and details than possible for quacks.. I mean credentialed “experts”. My prediction is that 2019 and 2020 will be far larger and more problematic shitshows than 2015 and 2016. Some of you (MikeCA?) might argue that every day since the election of Trump has been a shitshow.. and that is technically sorta true. But if you think that 2017 and 2018 were shitshows, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

There are many reasons why this period of 1.5 years will be an epic meta-shitshow of the likes we haven’t witnessed in living memory. However, it is not simply the sheer number or magnitude of individual shitshows that will make this period memorable, but how one shitshow will feed into another and so on.. you know, synergy. But before we go there, let us talk about why 2015 and 2016 marked the beginning of our current era of shitshows. It all began with an orange Buffoon riding down a gaudy escalator alongside a trophy wife with a face pumped full of cosmetic Botox. Initially it seemed that his campaign for the republican presidential nomination was just another publicity stunt to obtain a larger payout from the reality show in which he was starring.

However it became obvious to me within 4-6 weeks that his outrageous and colorful persona had far more public support than effete Washington DC ‘insiders’ realized. And yes.. I never changed my opinion on that issue and turned out be right. And ya.. I also predicted he would win against Hillary in early 2016, even at times when even the most radical presstitues.. I mean journalists.. thought that HRC might somehow prevail against him on election day. I also explored the real reasons why HRC would lose to that buffoon– before the election took place. FYI- majority of my accurate predictions have been about issues and topics other than Trump. But enough about the orange buffoon. Let us now talk about Brexit- more precisely, why the ‘remain’ side lost.

MSM news outlets in that rapidly decaying country (UK) want you to believe that Brexit was due to the stupidity of poorly educated people in that country. However a simple look at the geography of that vote tells you all you need about Brexit. Long story short, post-2008 austerity measures in UK hit parts of the country that are not London pretty hard. People who live in those regions, aka most of that country, got progressively disillusioned with the shitty status quo. They expressed their discontent by voting against something which stood as a placeholder for the widely reviled status quo. You know.. just like people in the Mid-West finally got tired of Obama’s 8-year long lie about “Hope and Change” voted for Trump over the symbol of continuity aka HRC.

But both these shocks to the Establishment, their aftermath and colorful rhetoric accompanying both those changes are nothing compared to what we will witness in 2019 and 2020. While I will restrict my predictions to USA, things are also likely to get interesting in other parts of the world- maybe a bit too interesting. But before we go to the list, a word of caution. The most obvious reasons are unlikely to be the most consequential. The less glamorous reasons, further down the list, carry far more weight than the shiny but superficial ones which are obvious. So let us start by listing them in order of apparent obviousness.

1] Ever since Trump won the republican nomination in mid-2016, democratic establishment and deep state types have been trying to find enough dirt to stop his victory in the 2016 presidential election (which they failed) or impeach him. As things stand today, they have not uncovered anything more scandalous than Trump getting his disgraced lawyer to pay hush money to two women he had sex with while married to his current wife. While this revelation does provide fodder for supermarket tabloids, it is totally unsurprising and in line with Trump’s past behavior. More importantly, the Mueller investigation has not uncovered evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia or Putin. Nor has it shown any definitive evidence for obstruction of justice by Trump. And I know MikeCA will have something to say about my characterization of that report.

But these severe setbacks have not stopped an increasing number of democrats from demanding his impeachment, because face it.. they always knew he was “guilty” of something impeachable. Today, the patron saint of pro-impeachment brigade aka Robert Mueller came out and all but openly encouraged democrats to start the impeachment process, even though his report does not contain enough evidence to prosecute Trump for either “collusion” or obstruction of justice. And ya.. I am aware of the legalese bullshit about not being able to exonerate him- but let us get real, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It also helps to be rich and white, but that is a topic for another post. My prediction is that democrats will initiate pre-impeachment proceedings against Trump, irrespective of potential negative effects it might have on their electoral prospects in 2020. But how does this translate into a nasty shitshow?

Well.. for a few reasons. Firstly, it is unlikely Trump will be impeached, tried and made to resign before November 3, 2020. Secondly, the pre-impeachment investigation is going to be long and highly contentious. It will also overshadow democratic primaries and possibly the presidential election to such an extent that other issues will be effectively sidelined. So be prepared for a democratic primary in which candidates offer endless paeans to bipartisanship, civility in politics, reestablishing “norms” and impeaching Trump at the expense of all the other stuff most voters in the general election actually care about. You know.. stuff like antitrust action against various monopolies and oligopolies, medicare for all, doing something about student debt etc. Think of HRCs “what will the children think” 2016 campaign on steroids. But in some ways, this will be smallest shitshow of them all.

2] Stupid old losers who constitute a majority of democratic primary voters in large states seem to be enamored by “gun control” aka banning civilian ownership of guns. Given that everyone in the packed clown car of democratic candidates is expected to appeal to them, one should expect increasingly shrill and strident anti-gun ownership rhetoric. While appealing to these losers might help one win the primary and a few coastal states in general, it is almost guaranteed to backfire in swing states- especially those with large rural and semi-urban populations. Now add in a few random mass shootings (almost inevitable?) between now and Nov 3, 2020 and you can imagine how nutty this could get. Expect the Democratic house to pass one or more atrociously written anti-gun ownership laws and a few high profile court cases.

To make matters worse, if that is possible, we have seen a recent trend by private corporate monopolies/ oligopolies based in heavily democratic states to deny services based on ideology. Here are a few recent examples.. Software Maker Salesforce Tells Gun Retailers to Stop Selling AR-15s, YouTube Alternatives for Gun Videos & Content Creators and Bank of America to Stop Financing Makers of Military-Style Guns. I, for one, don’t see how pissing off millions of well-armed and single-issue voters who live in gun-ownership friendly jurisdictions is a smart idea when your party has to win their votes in 2020. Then again, this is the same party which think that Joe Biden in 2020 would make the best general election candidate. Or maybe the Democrats don’t want to really win national elections. Who knows..

The large number of democratic candidates vying for the party nomination will make things even weirder than the republican field in 2016. We have all seen how small campaigns which use far less costly traditional advertising and advisers can prevail over larger “mainstream” operations. Between this and the proliferation of small donors, expect far more candidates to remain in the race even after the first major primaries are over. And the DNC and other party establishment are going to try hard, and ineffectually, to stop Bernie by hook or crook. Don’t be surprised if the 2020 democratic convention is held under even more acrimonious circumstances than 2016. And there will be anonymous leaks, just like last time. It is going to get real ugly by mid 2020.

3] Let us now turn to the less obvious, but far more consequential, trends which promise to make 2019 and 2020 the biggest shitshows in living memory. Long story short, we are due for at least three independent nasty blowbacks from Trump’s foreign and trade policies. Let us start by talking about Iran or more precisely how his stupid policy towards that country has the potential to backfire in a spectacularly disastrous manner. It is no secret that idiots such as Pompeo and Bolton, urged on by Zionists and Saudis, are trying to start a war. What they don’t understand, or are willing to understand, is that any war with Iran in addition being unwinnable would make the Iraq misadventure look like quaint in comparison. The outcome of such a war would include Iran finally developing nuclear weapons (perhaps with Chinese assistance), prolonged and massive oil shortages with resultant price hikes and many other bad long-term effects (on USA).

Moving on.. Kim Jon-un has repeatedly conveyed to USA that unless economic sanctions are at least partially removed by end of 2019, he will restart testing ICBMs. My guess is that DPRK will demonstrate an entirely solid-fueled ICBM in early 2020, unless Trump and the idiots running “foreign policy” in USA openly abandon the idea of DPRK giving up its nukes and ICBMS- because the later ain’t going to happen. Which means that sometime in 2020, Trump will have to decide on how to respond to new ICBM and perhaps even nuclear tests by DPRK. To make matters even more interesting, this escalation will likely occur around the same time as Iran is likely to finally leave the JCPOA and restart its uranium enrichment program at maximum capacity. But wait.. it gets even better, or worse, depending on your viewpoint.

As most of you know by now, Trump is involved in an unwinnable trade-war with China. And here is why.. China’s economy and manufacturing capacity is far larger than USA in real terms. While the american economy and system will implode without Chinese imports, the converse is not true. There is also no other country in the world that has as large, varied and sophisticated a manufacturing base as China. Did I mention that USA and rest of the “West” are economically stagnant, demand saturated and in overall decline. China is not going to compromise on Huawei, give in to demands of american corporations or basically change anything significant about how it works or does business. It is the USA and rest of “West” that will have to ultimately eat crow. And they will start hurting USA by screwing over Boeing and make life interesting for every american corporation which does significant amounts of business there or dependent on its exports.

Tensions with Russia could exacerbate further given the current political climate in USA and provide opportunity for yet another shitshow. Did I mention how conflicts between internet monopolies and right wingers could spill into the real world with potentially disastrous results for the former. To summarize, the rest of 2019 and whole of 2020 will almost certainly witness far larger and problematic shitshows than anything in living memory. Even worse, many of these shitshows could feed into each other to create meta-shitshows.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Inevitability of Iran Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Within 5 Years

May 26, 2019 5 comments

The idea that Iran will, one day soon, develop and test nuclear weapons is not new. Losers such as Netanyahoo have been telling anybody willing to listen that ‘Iran will develop nuclear weapons within six months’ for, at least, the last 15 years. But for some reason, this never came to pass. In this post, I will give you my analysis on why Iran did not build and test nuclear weapons for past 15 years, but is almost certain to do so within next 5 years. And yes.. the reasons for that change are linked to my choice of word to describe that opportunistic nutcase. It is also important that you understand that I have no horse in this race, and have pretty negative views about all parties involved in this slow-motion train wreck.

So let us start with the first and most obvious question- why hasn’t Iran already developed and tested nuclear weapons. They certainly spent a lot of resources building their nuclear program. Other countries who devoted similar resources to developing nukes such as Pakistan and DPRK managed to develop them within a decade of serious effort. Given the number of competent engineers Iran produces every single year, they certainly do not lack human capital. Iran also does not lack ingenious sources of Uranium ore. Economic and technology sanctions are totally ineffective at stopping nations from developing nuclear weapons- look at China, India, Pakistan and DPRK. We have to look elsewhere to understand why Iran hasn’t yet developed nukes.

Some of you might think that Israel’s use of Stuxnet or paying idiots to assassinate a few Iranian scientists stopped Iran from developing nukes. Here is the sad reality.. Stuxnet did not even slow down Iran’s uranium enrichment program. The idea that it was effective is something impotent computer geeks, blusterous Israelis and few western think-tanks want (you) to believe. Even worse, Stuxnet spurred Iranians to build bigger, more secure and more efficient centrifuges. Talk about a counterproductive effort. Similarly, a few highly publicized but minor bombings of Iranian nuclear scientists ended up giving their government the excuse to crack down on internal dissent- much more harshly than otherwise possible. Way to go, Bozos!

So why hasn’t Iran developed nukes yet? The simple answer is that, for a long time, the utility of such weapons to Iran was marginal- at best. Iran is a pretty big country, with a large population and army competent in many overt and covert forms of warfare. It dominates its middle-eastern neighbors to such an extent that no country within a couple of thousand kilometers, including Israel, has a prayer of winning a land war against it. Even an unstable Iran, such as existed in early 1980s, could hold its own against an Iraq supplied with almost unlimited amount of conventional weapons and money by the West and, curiously, USSR. More importantly, only Iran and Turkey are natural states in the Asian part of Middle-East. To make a long story short, Iran did not require nukes to defend against its neighbors.

While Iran dabbled in developing nukes in decades following the 1979 revolution, it went down that path only after the failed american occupation of Iraq in 2003. That is right.. Bush43 is the real reason Iran decided to seriously pursue development of nuclear weapons. Think about that for a second.. it was the actions of USA, not Israel or Saudi Arabia, which led to the current situation. To make matters even more.. interesting.. Iran did briefly stop its nuclear program in 2003 and offered Bush43 administration a rare chance at normalizing relations. Bush43’s administration, however, was full of delusional ‘muricans who thought they could get a better deal and effect regime change in Tehran. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? By 2005, Iran figured out that american occupation of Iraq was doomed to end in humiliation and restarted the program.

However, this time they decided to ramp up the scale and resources devoted to nukes. However, unlike DPRK, they were still non-committal. In my opinion, replacement of the ailing Kim Jong-il by his son, Kim Jon-un, after 2011 was the biggest reason for DPRK decision to build nukes and ICBMs at scale. And let us face it, KJU was correct in pursuing such capabilities. Iran, on the other hand, thought they could use their nuclear capability as a bargaining chip to normalize relations with the west. Some famous western idiots may claim it was economic sanctions which brought Iran to negotiating table in 2013, but who are we kidding.. an Iran with nukes that could hit anywhere within 2000 kms can block the strait of Hormuz without sending a single extra patrol boat or firing a single shot. If Iran had developed nukes by 2012, they would not have to sign that worthless agreement in 2015. So why didn’t they develop nukes?

The thing is.. one faction in the Iranian government was extra-greedy and thought it could make tons of money by using the nuclear program as a bargaining chip. And that was the case- at least in the short run. Of course, they did not anticipate a weak, greedy and stupid man such as Trump to be elected in 2016. And mark my words, Trump will be the reason why Iran finally ends up developing, testing and deploying nukes. The orange buffoon with a Zionist son-in-law and Bush43 administration rejects such as Pompeo and Bolton, thought that he could do what Bush43 also thought he could but failed miserably. By now, you might have noticed that I have not mentioned Gulf state monarchs such as MBS. Here is why.. hereditary rulers in that region are at best, comic sideshows, of little consequence to the larger strategic picture. They don’t matter.

Getting back to the change in situation with Iran since Trump was elected in late 2016.. the orange buffoon is apparently stupid enough to think that he can win multiple military and non-militarily conflicts by empty bluster and economic sanctions. Which is why he has antagonized many countries, from Russia and China to Venezuela and Cuba. As I wrote in a previous post, it won’t end well and Trump will be remembered as the guy who presided over second act of american imperial collapse. We have already seen the idiot and his old delusional advisers try and flounder repeatedly even against such supposedly easy ‘targets’ such as Venezuela. Trump’s hare-brained schemes have, however, exposed a fundamental flaw of the “western” system.

Any treaty or agreement between two or more countries is possible only if both parties believe there is a reasonable chance for things to work out in a half-reasonable manner. This is especially true when both parties are real countries and not fake ones such as those found in Central and South america or Gulf region. Since 1991, USA has consistently shown that it is unwilling to fulfill its obligations in any agreement or treaty. While they might have gotten away with such behavior prior to 2003-2005, things have changed a lot since then. USA is no longer the largest economy in world since 2008-2009, it makes little of global importance other than CPU chips and one family of airliners- and even that will be over within five years.

Did I mention the part where most of its citizens are now a paycheck or two from ruin and have to beg others to cover their “healthcare” costs. Or how its people would rather overdose or drink themselves to death or how its “heartland” is a poor and de-industrialized shiscape. My point is that USA is simply not in the same position it was in between 1991-2003. Its leadershit, however, still thinks it is 1997. The rest of the aging, shrinking and dying “west” is in similar shape, but still think the 1990s never ended. The net result of these senile western delusions is that they still think they can get away with behavior which they cannot. While this was not that obvious before Trump’s election in 2016, many of the decisions he has made since then have exposed the unwillingness of USA and its vassal states to stand behind agreements and treaties as well as a highly misplaced belief in their ability to influence events.

DPRK, under KJU, has demonstrated the inexorable impotence of the dying west. He has also shown that negotiating from a position of open and obvious strength is the only realistic way to deal with the senile west and its delusions of past grandeur. Until 2016, Iran had (for reasons largely linked to monetary gains) played by the decrepit West’s rules- which did not ultimately get them what they wanted. Now their leaders can no longer pretend it was a good deal. Regardless of whether there is any military action against Iran in near future, it is now almost inevitable that Iran will develop, test and deploy nukes within next five years. And guess what.. they will get help from China who would like to make things interesting for USA and its vassals.

In case you are wondering, China has done this twice before- directly in the case of Pakistan and by looking the other way in case of DPRK. While I keep mentioning a five year timeline, it is likely that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran might happen much sooner. Regardless, my point is that the process is now inevitable even if the ongoing tensions between that country and USA and its vassals are resolved in a peaceful manner. A return to the previous order of things is now simply not possible. One way or other, Iran is going to end up developing nukes in near future.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: May 25, 2019

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

Amateur Cuties on Bed: May 14, 2019 – Amateur cuties lying on the bed, bottoms up.

Beach Cuties Wearing Sunglasses: May 14, 2019 – Amateur beach cuties wearing sunglasses.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

How China Should Screw Over Trump and Gradually Destroy Boeing

May 23, 2019 4 comments

As most of you know by now, the orange buffoon and some of his old white advisers think they can “win” a trade war against China- which is darkly comic because China’s economy surpassed USA in real terms almost a decade ago. Their latest sad attempt to “win” against China involves sanctioning its telecom giants such as ZTE and Huawei. The Chinese, being no fools, have been prepared for this contingency for about five years, because the first rumblings of such american behavior were heard as early as 2012, during the Obama presidency. While they probably did not expect a total idiot such as Trump to preside over the 2nd act of american collapse, that is where we are now. Before moving on to the main topic, a quick prediction about how the Huawei ban story is likely to unfold. Long story short, USA will lose because China is not France or Japan.

While many racist idiots on the internet and american think-tanks seem to think that China might retaliate by freezing imports of rare earth elements, dumping american treasuries or stopping the production of iPhones and pretty much every other smartphone brand, I think they may use a much more interesting tactic. Destroying Boeing is a far better way to retaliate because airliners and CPU chips are pretty much the only two important non-weapon related products made in USA. And ya, China should go after Intel too- but via a different and somewhat longer route. The advantage of being a very large and competently run one-party system is that you can afford to play the long game unlike dying delusional losers who pretend to be the “most democratic and humanitarian” system in the world. Here is how they can fuck Trump over and destroy Boeing- in a manner which advances their cause and is profitable.

As you might have also heard, airliners of new Boeing 737Max series has been grounded because they used shitty software and failure-prone hardware to fix serious flaws in airframe design. It is my opinion that this ongoing fiasco has potential to break Boeing’s back and ruin its share in the international airliner market. While the company could still survive on defense contracts from USA, China should use this perfect storm of circumstances to start the process of gradually destroying Boeing as a viable maker of commercial airplanes. As luck would have it, a large number of the nearly 5,000 odd orders for that series come from East-Asia, specifically China. This leverage gives China an almost unique pathway to break Boeing’s back. Sure.. tens of thousands of Americans will lose their jobs, but guess what- who gives a shit?

Step 1: Given the stakes and desired outcome, there is no no need to rush the final outcome. China could start by demanding compensation for grounded 737Max aircraft, order more equivalent Airbus aircraft and not order any more of them– in the short term. As luck would have it, again, this is exactly what is happening right now- which sets up the next step.

Step 2: Once Boeing comes out with what it considers to be an adequate fix, China should examine it thoroughly and then declare it inadequate. They should say that it is a fragile fix for a design that is fundamentally flawed. They can then pretend to be reasonable by letting Boeing fill a small fraction (around 20% ?) of their 737MAX orders with the older and tested 737NG series.

Step 3: China should then ban 737MAX aircraft from flying in Chinese airspace (even during transit) as safety precaution. This will make it much harder for other Asian carriers, who either have tons of flights to China or overfly it, to buy them. But don’t say anything negative about, or restrict, other Boeing products like the 777 and 787 series, yet.

Step 4: Transfer bulk of orders for that airliner class to Airbus. If they express concerns about their ability to fill those orders on time, offer financial and other help to setup more assembly lines in China and Europe. This step will make it easier to reverse engineer indigenous airliners in future as well as start cutting into Boeing’s income stream.

Step 5: Boeing makes a profit on a new airplane series only after net sales finally surpass the cumulative cost of development, testing, interest on debt and building cost per airplane. Banning the 737MAX series from China achieves two things. First, it pushes Boeing to spend billions on developing a new replacement series. Secondly, loss of potential future income from that series (its main source of income in next decade) fucks up the balance sheets.

Step 6: American corporations are run by ivy-league frauds, greedy MBAs and obsessive bean-counters for the sole benefit of major shareholders. A major shortfall in the income stream translates into much lower dividends, share prices and a rapidly increasing amounts of debt- which leads to “right-sizing” aka firing people who actually work.

Step 7: Firing workers and operating with a significantly smaller, demotivated and poorly paid workforce results in poorer quality control- and we have already seen something like this occur with the 787 series. China can keep inspecting other Boeing aircraft series for poor build quality and they will get the proof they want within a year or two. This can then be used to further humiliate Boeing and enforce further bans against its other airliners.

Step 8: Some of you might wonder whether banning banning 737MAXes from East-Asian skies could truly hurt Boeing. Wouldn’t the markets in North and South America + Europe make up for China? Well.. no, because North America and Europe are saturated low-growth markets while Latin America is a pipsqueak compared to China and East Asia. Banning 737MAXes from Eastern Asia is, therefore, sufficient to initiate Boeing’s death spiral.

Step 9: Increased production of Airbus airliners in China will achieve two ends. Firstly, it will prevent any global shortage of short-to-medium haul airliners. Secondly, the experience gained building those aircraft will be useful for their indigenous airliner programs. Did I mention that it will start the process of making Boeing noncompetitive in the commercial airliner sector.

Sure.. Boeing will still be around five years from now. However it will now derive most of its revenue from selling shitty military aircraft, expensive but worthless missiles and other military paraphernalia to USA and its vassal states. A fitting end for that company.

What do you think? Comments?

Anti-Abortion Movement is Destined to Lose and Become Irrelevant: 2

May 22, 2019 21 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how the modern anti-abortion movement is going to end up like the failed, dead and forgotten temperance movement. Historically speaking, movements which originate in dying and declining regions of the world tend to almost always fail. Moreover, the extent of brain-dead religiosity necessary to believe in that bullshit is rapidly declining, even in retarded parts of the world such as USA. Both of these are, however, fairly minor in comparison to the other reasons which will doom that movement. To make matters more interesting, these reasons are far more systemic than the previously mentioned ones.

So let us enumerate the other reasons why the anti-abortion movement will become irrelevant..

In the previous part, I made a reference to how the modern anti-abortion movement’s origin in ex-slave owning, still impoverished and dying southern states would lead to its demise. But what are the mechanics of such a demise? Also, would it be a stand-alone phenomena or part of a much larger trend? Well.. let me ask you a seemingly unrelated question. Do you remember how, in the 1990s, many american idiots deluded themselves into believing that the rest of the world would become like them. I remember an era when rags-of-record such as the NYT and WP were full of opinion pieces masquerading as “news” which imagined a future where american brands and corporations such as McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut etc would prevail all over the world.

So how did that work out? While it might to tempting to attribute their failure in the global marketplace to american incompetence (partially true) or protectionism by other countries (also, partially true)- the meta reason for their abject failure outside USA (and vassal states like Canada or Australia) is far more basic. The product and services which they offered were simply inferior to local alternatives. I could never understand why, for example, american fast food corporations thought they had any chance in countries with decent indigenous culinary traditions- because most ‘american’ food tastes like salty flavorless crap. Similarly, it was hard to understand why Walmart and Target believed that they have any real hope in larger Asian countries.

But what does any of this have to with the anti-abortion movement meeting its demise? Let me put it this way- why would someone in Singapore, China or India eat American fast food when equivalently priced local offerings are vastly superior in taste and quality? Why would women in affluent and densely populated coastal states such as NY, CA, WA or even FL crimp their access to abortion and want to live as they reside in shitty, dying ex-slave owning states? An inferior option will always be rejected by most people unless enforced by legislation. Think about it this way.. why would anybody with more than half-a-brain want to keep living in shitty backward states? Now take that idea to the next step- who would want to move and work in those states?

One of the problems with running corporations that do stuff other than pack meat or assemble low-end automobiles is that you have to hire people with a minimum degree of competence. But what happens if the people you require to run the organisation cannot be found in a given part of the country? But surely, not everybody will desert those forsaken states and move to another part of the country. Well.. they don’t have to because even a gradual but continuous loss of talent is enough to ruin areas with an adverse demographic profile (think East Germany). More importantly, middle and upper management of corporations do not want to be associated with racist stupid white trash. Also why rich CONservatives are based in NY, CA or DC.

The gradual loss of talent and any remaining physical manifestations of success leads to the next reason why that movement is doomed. Almost nobody wants to be associated with repulsive losers and their ideologies. Ever wondered why most people today don’t want to identify as Nazis or hood-wearing racists? Remember that Nazism was once popular in many countries outside pre-WW2 Germany, including USA. The same is true for racists movements such as KKK. Long story short, those movements are not popular today because they lost (and not because of moral revulsion). The most ardent supporters of anti-abortion movement are on the losing side of history- for a number of social, cultural and economic trends beyond their control.

So let us talk about those reasons. While women have been aborting since the beginning of time, modern methods of abortion started coming into existence around the beginning of 20th century, though some came online as late the 1980s. Some might have noticed that this era coincidences with gaining the right to vote and entry of women into the workplace. There is also a reason that most countries legalized abortion between 1950s and 1970s. Hint: it is about women entering and staying in the workplace in ever larger numbers and irreversible breakdown of CONservative “family values”. The single biggest factor which drove the legalization of abortion is the need for Capitalism to extract an every increasing amount of value from workers. I cannot resist pointing out the irony of CONservatives decrying one of the major routes for expansion of Capitalism in 20th century.

Which brings me to another related reason for inevitable failure of the anti-abortion movement- an irreversible increase in Female agency. A lot of anti-abortion morons believe they have far more female support than they have in reality. See.. a significant minority of women might pretend to support the anti-abortion movement to look more virtuous, but it is just an empty display of virtue. Think of how Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare dozens of time only because they knew that it would be successfully vetoed. The vast majority of women who claim to support the anti-abortion movement will drop their support the moment it becomes obvious that such a measure might pass- even in shitholes such as Alabama and Georgia.

And don’t forget.. traditionally male-dominated jobs such as those in large factories, mines or involving hard physical work now constitute a minority of jobs. Now add in the fact that women can pick and choose the guy they want to sleep with and can make decent money without being married etc. Almost no woman below a certain age has any interest in changing the status quo- regardless of the party she voted for in last election. There is a reason why the most vocal female opponents of abortion rights are post-menopausal and osteoporotic white, black or hispanic women. The other supporters of the anti-abortion movement are obese and impotent southern white men, a group that is in irreversible decline and not especially popular. The remaining supporters of that doomed movement include mostly white young male losers who talk about traditional family values, but lack the job or looks to get women to have sex with them.

In other words, none of the groups who support the anti-abortion movement are ascendant. But there is one more reason why the anti-abortion movement is doomed to failure. Women of reproductive age are far more sympathetic than embryos and fetuses. Just wait till any of these stupid laws results in the death of a moderately photogenic (and white) woman with ectopic pregnancy, infections spreading to fetus, pre-eclampsia, infections due to botched attempts at abortions. You think that media goes overboard promoting the victims of mass shootings? You haven’t seen anything yet. Also, social media will amplify such tragedies in ways that stupid old southern losers cannot defend. Did I mention that every internet monopoly is run and staffed by people with pro-choice views. Of course, the anti-abortion losers are too delusional and stupid to understand how their actions will end up speeding the final public demise of that movement.

What do you think? Comments?

David Benioff and Daniel Weiss Screwed HBO and Their Own Careers

May 19, 2019 8 comments

By now most of you might have heard that the long-running HBO series ‘Game of Thrones’ (GOT) ended in a manner that was highly unsatisfactory for most viewers and very predictable due to online spoilers posted over the last few weeks. While I have never been a fan of fictional worlds, from LOTR and Star Wars to Star Trek, I find them to be an interesting way of gauging the prevailing Zeitgeist. For example, most movies made and released during the 1980s were often unusually optimistic. Similarly, 1990s movies tried to become increasingly realistic- especially towards the end of that decade. Superhero movie and other escapist crap started becoming dominant after 9/11, and the past decade has seen an endless number of mindless reboots and poorly executed CGI-heavy crap. Art tends to mirror the era in which it is made.

So where does the 7th and 8th season of GOT fit into all of this? Well.. for starters, I never found that show to be particularly engaging. While its overall quality of cinematography, production values and CGI was very good- the story was rather insipid. See.. good production values and CGI do not make a good, memorable or influential movie- as we all know by watching the Hobbit Trilogy, every Star Wars movie released after 1980s, every Jurassic park movie other than the original etc. A movie with a good story and mediocre cinematography will always be far longer lived and influential than one which looks good but lacks a good story. Don’t believe me.. what are your memories about Avatar, the Hobbit Trilogy, the more recent reboots of Spiderman, Superman , Star Trek, Blade Runner etc.

Getting back to GOT, let me first tell you why I think it became successful in the first place. Here is a clue.. even though it was set in a fantasy medieval-style world, the characters thought and behaved in a manner identical to their 21st century viewers. In other words, GOT was just a slickly filmed version of a decent MMORPG. But what made the story of GOT fundamentally weak and insipid- even before the 7th and 8th seasons? To understand that, one has to go into what separates a good story from an insipid or bad one. The simple, if somewhat tasteless, answer is that all good stories are about fulfilling the wishes and desires of its audience while exhibiting reasonable internal consistency. That is why so many stories end with “they lived happily ever after”, “the good guys or girls won”, “good triumphs over evil” etc. Do you have any?

Stories based in nihilism, amorality, hopelessness etc are fundamentally weak even if the character development and writing quality is superb. While they may eventually end up being considered as “great” works by an effete elite, but such stories will never be truly popular. The book series that the show was based on was.. for the lack of better words.. meandering, unfocused and nihilistic. So why did it succeed, at least initially? The simple answer is that its screenplay was written to be even more relatable for a 21st century audience and the story was given a definite and pronounced arc. But the second, and more important, reason was its timing.

GOT came out in 2011, which happened to the perfect time for a show based in cosplay and neoliberal nihilism. As some of you remember cosplay became big in North American only after 2005, and the global financial crisis occurred in late 2008. But how can certain forms of escapism and a still ongoing socio-economic crisis make a TV show, containing allusions to both, so successful? Well.. tell me something, what did viewers discuss about after each episode was aired and what did they anticipate in the next one? In case you forgot, it was always about who was murdered, betrayed, tortured, mutilated in each episode and how sudden or unexpected it was. Isn’t this eerily like the lonely and precarious lives and careers of most people in North American and increasingly the “West”? You know.. the prevailing Zeitgeist.

Now that we have talked about why that show became popular in the first place, let us now focus on how and why David Benioff and Daniel Weiss (henceforth referred to as Dumb and Dumber) killed the proverbial goose which laid golden eggs.

1] While I would prefer to not say it, there is a strong connection between the ethno-religious identity of David Benioff and Daniel Weiss and how they screwed up this project. And no.. I am not accusing them of being unusually greedy or covetous. It comes down to the hubris of semi-competent people. Confused? See.. you might have noticed that a particular ethno-religious group is rather well represented in the entertainment industry. But why? Is it because they are competent or is it because of social connections. Well.. look at the consistently high rate of failures in that sector. Do you think that competent people who know what they doing could fail so often? Does your doctor or surgeon fail at those rates? Does the engineer who designs your car or helps build a bridge fail as often as those who make movies or TV shows?

The reality is that making movies, TV shows, music etc which are financially successful has little to do with technical competence and much more to do with accidentally stumbling on the Zeitgeist and also knowing the right people to fund your idea. In other words, dumb luck and social connections. But what happens once you succeed? This is where Hubris starts becoming an issue and liability. See.. most people, especially marginally clever ones, start deluding themselves into believing that they have some sort of Midas touch- because the alternative is too painful for them to accept. They start acting as if every stupid idea they ever had will lead to their next hit. More problematically, they start believing themselves to be far more competent than they are.

Dumb and Dumber are probably good showrunners with a decent ability to write screenplays based on existing material. Perhaps they also have a good team who does a pretty good job casting actors, hiring good technical help etc. But they are not good at writing original material. That is why the quality of that show started going doing after the 6th season. But why not after the 5th season- which is as far as the original book series went. Well.. it comes down to the lack of major plot development in the 6th season. Dumb and Dumber went on autopilot and it appeared to work, for a time. Things started to fall apart in 7th season because that is when they went past the point where the need for plot development started eclipsing their abilities. That is when the plot and story arc first started meandering and the tropes started to increasingly resemble those in mainstream movies and TV shows.

2] This is where HBO should have started putting its foot down, but they didn’t for two reasons. Firstly, the ratings were still reasonably good and product deterioration was not yet a PR disaster. The second reason, in my opinion, is that people from any given racial or ethno-religious group, will usually give a much wider berth to those they identify with than those they don’t. There is a reason why white cops will shoot and kill black men holding cell phones but will patiently and carefully arrest white men who have murdered more than a dozen people. In the entertainment industry, belonging to a certain ethno-religious group translates into being allowed to make far bigger mistakes than those who do not belong to said group. That is why Dumb and Dumber were never seriously challenged by HBO about the rapidly declining quality of their product.

Which led to ‘normalization of deviance’ aka progressive institutional failure. See.. under normal circumstances a series of tense discussions with HBO after the 7th season should have reined in their incompetence. But nothing like that ever happened and that is how they made the abortion known as Season 8. But why was it so much worse that the previous season? Once again, for two reasons. First, they went all Michael Bay to cover up the lack of even a mediocre underlying story. Have a look at the amount of CGI used in Season 8 versus any previous one. Excessive use of CGI = lack of compelling story or narrative. But it gets worse. They made the mistake, born of their incompetence as writers of original material, of using mainstream movie and TV tropes in a show which was based on not using them. To make matters even worse, they did not even bother to reconcile their new story arcs and character motivations with their previous seasons.

3] However, the single biggest mistake they made in season 8 was due to factors beyond their control. They missed the change in Zeitgeist since Nov 8, 2016. Prior to that date, letting an incompetent or barely competent white guy “win” in that show or even live at the end was not suicidal. However, doing so after that date has become highly problematic, for rather obvious reasons. As much as it pains me to say this, the only popular ending to that show would have required a woman (the most ruthless one) to “win” that throne. But Dumb and Dumber thought that they could get way with an ending in which the two most powerful and ruthless women characters were killed. Maybe Dumb and Dumber believed in their own bullshit to such a degree that they completely overlooked this major shift in the Zeitgeist.

In my opinion, this mistake (which few want to openly acknowledge) more than any other is going to be remembered as the most problematic. While I am not an SJW, I am also not stupid enough to ignore the change in tastes and expectations of other people. The fallout of Season 8 is going to be especially bad for HBO, given that it was recently acquired by the parasitic bean-counters at AT&T. Between being associated with such public failures, acquisition by AT&T and competition from Netflix- things don’t look bright for HBO. George R. R. Martin’s writing career is the second casualty of this fuck up. Regardless of what he has written before, he will be forever tainted by the failure of Season 8, unless he decides to publicly dissociate himself from the TV show.

The careers of Dumb and Dumber will also take a hit, though it may be a bit delayed. People who invests tons of money into making movies or TV shows usually don’t want to employ people who are seen as the principal reason for the humiliating demise of a profitable flagship franchise. Then again.. Dumb and Dumber might know the right people.

What do you think? Comments?

Anti-Abortion Movement is Destined to Lose and Become Irrelevant: 1

May 18, 2019 15 comments

A few months ago, I wrote a post about how the democratic party obsession with ‘gun control’ could cost them during the 2020 election cycle. It now seems that the republican party wants to one-up them by passing a series of hilariously bad anti-abortion laws in a few shithole.. I mean southern.. states. It has long been my belief that real differences between the democratic and republican party are largely restricted to socio-cultural issues such as gun and abortion rights. As many of you know, I have long held the position that trying to restrict or eliminate gun rights is not a winning strategy apart from 2-3 coastal states. We will now go into the many reasons why even attempting to pass laws which restrict the right to abortion is an even more stupid idea.

The temperance movement is an interesting, if peculiar, historical analogue to the modern anti-abortion movement. For those of you who aren’t interested in history, it was a big movement in the late 19th-early 20th century USA centered around banning the sale and consumption of alcohol. Its main promoters were male religious nutcases and proto-feminists (talk about weird alliances). Anyway, their campaign ultimately led to Prohibition in 1919 which led to a whole lot of unintended and highly counterproductive secondary consequences which then led to its subsequent repeal in 1933. So what did the decade (or so) of Prohibition lead to, other than the abject humiliation and almost total destruction of that movement. There is a reason why the only place most people have read about the Temperance movement is in history books.

Much of the night life we take for granted today is the result of the defiant public response to that futile and yes.. racist.. movement. Prior to Prohibition pushing public drinking underground for a decade, supposedly respectable women did not go to bars. The proliferation of speakeasies during prohibition changed drinking culture irreversibly and made it a cool activity which women started participating in rapidly increasing numbers. Also, previously most drinking establishments in USA served little other than a few popular types of beverages and greasy food. This changed after women started frequenting bars. Picking up women who weren’t prostitutes in a bar became possible only after bars became a cool place for women to visit. To make a long story short, it ended up normalizing and glamorizing drinking in ways previously considered impossible.

So let us now talk about why the modern anti-abortion movement is similar to the utterly failed and discredited temperance movement. The most obvious similarities between them are that they never enjoyed majority support and were dominated by loud zealots with racist/ nativist belief systems. But the similarities run far deeper. Both movements were fuelled by people who claimed to be solving some real world problem but were in fact about trying to control the lives of others and ruining their happiness. Have a look at the faces and read about personalities of people who pushed Prohibition. Did you notice a distinctive lack of physically attractive or intellectually gifted people among its ranks? Ever wonder why that was the case? Also, why didn’t most countries with similar levels of alcohol consumption never attempt Prohibition?

Now tell me something. Have you noticed that the anti-abortion types in USA are almost always obese older white men and post-menopausal white women living in ex-slavery southern states, old and fat black and Hispanic women and a small number of losers aka traditional conservative men? Some of you might counter my characterization by telling me about a couple of attractive young women who claim to be anti-abortion.. and you know what, I am sure they exist. However, it is undeniable that the anti-abortion movement derives most of its support from pudgy, sweaty, pre-diabetic, post-fertile men and women living in shithole.. I mean southern.. states. But why is that so? Why don’t you find anybody who looks half-attractive or has more than half a brain support the anti-abortion movement? And why is the anti-abortion movement so weak outside the heart of darkness.. I mean southern states? Also, why is it so weak outside USA?

The first obvious clue that the modern anti-abortion movement is doomed therefore comes from who supports it and who doesn’t. Let me put that in a different way, how many of you want to move to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri etc? If not, why not? Well.. the simple answer is that flyover states (especially in the south) are dying. There are no well paying jobs with decent future prospects in those places. Also, those parts of the country also have rapidly deteriorating infrastructure and are generally shitty places to live in- at many levels. Historically, movements whose largest support base exists in declining and dying populations/ regions tend to end up as failures. Now compare the anti-abortion movement to the popularity of yoga studios among women- guess which is on an inexorable decline and which one is booming.

The second clue that the modern anti-abortion movement has no future comes from its very limited geographical spread. Let me explain.. how many developed or even developing countries outside USA have an anti-abortion movement of any significance. Why not? Well.. as I mentioned in a post from almost a year ago- the CONservative and reactionary elements within many nations (other than USA) got preferentially culled in WW1 and WW2. Let me rephrase that, only populations with unusually high levels of belief in traditional religions are capable of supporting the anti-abortion movement. Interest and belief in traditional religion has declined sharply over past two decades and this trend is even more marked in the younger generations. Ever met a non- or low-religious person who strongly supports the anti-abortion movement? Me neither..

Since we are at almost a thousand words, I will leave the remainder of my analysis for the next and hopefully last part of this short series. In case you are wondering, it will be about how the losers in anti-abortion movement lack the mental capacity to appreciate the magnitude of the multiple public relations disasters they are walking into. Then again, those idiots deserve it.

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Channel: David Hoffman

May 17, 2019 2 comments

A few months ago, I came across an interesting YouTube channel containing many interview clips from the late 1980s. Here is a link to the channel- David Hoffman. They are interesting because the interviewer allows the interviewees to speak without interruption and touch on many of the issues which still haunt american society today. Topics range from race relations in the 1950s and 60s to how the mainstream media promotes fake news and propaganda.

Clip #1: He Saw The Media Manipulate The Story In 1968 Chicago

Some people act as if democratic establishment and mainstream media stealing the presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders in 2016 was something new. Well.. it wasn’t. And the way things are going, we may see something similar in 2020. How little some things change..

Clip #2: Magnificent Storyteller Soldier Reveals What He Saw In Vietnam

This clip is interesting because what he says about his initial opinion about, and later experience in, 1960s-era Vietnam are not that dissimilar from those who ended up in Afghanistan and Iraq after 2002-2003. As I have long maintained, people do not learn until they suffer consequences for their actions. Also, USA lost the wars of Occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan just like it lost in Vietnam. Guess somebody made tons of money selling weapons for all those conflicts..

What do you think? Comments?

Destroying King’s Landing using Drogon was the Most Rational Decision

May 13, 2019 9 comments

I wasn’t planning to write this post, but decided to do so after realizing that my central idea was pretty good and apparently uncommon. Most of you have heard about how Daenerys destroyed the entire city of King’s Landing with her Dragon in the penultimate episode of HBO’s Game of Thrones. While we could go into all the callbacks which foreshadowed this event, doing so would be a waste of time. Also, I am simply not that into D&D type fantasy stories. My knowledge about GOT comes mainly from watching short clips and summaries on YouTube and certain porn sites. Furthermore, it has always been my opinion that the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin is a sad attempt to copy the much better researched fictional universe of J. R. R. Tolkien, whose knowledge about the early medieval world was based in his lifelong scholarship.

Anyway.. without going further into why I believe Tolkien or Lovecraft to be far better writers than Martin, let us tackle the issue at hand- one which has taken up more space on the internet than whether Trump is stupid enough to start a war with Iran and Venezuela while involved in trade war with China and new cold-war with Russia. By now, most people on the internet seem to have made up their mind that Daenerys’s decision to nuke king’s Landing and kill tens or maybe hundreds of thousands using the Dragon and her armies was further evidence of her being a “mad queen” or something along those lines. I disagree! Given the fictional universe she inhabits, burning that city to the ground and killing most (if not all) of its inhabitants was probably one of the most pragmatic and rational decisions she ever made.

Here is why..

1] The GOT universe, unlike the LOTR universe, is not based on how real medieval European societies functioned, thought or saw the world around themselves. Scholars of actual medieval history have pointed out that RR Martin’s universe is too secular and what one might call “early modern” but without the technology associated with that period. Most people alive today cannot comprehend how important religious beliefs and faith were for people living during that era. Let me rephrase it, RR Martin’s version of the medieval world is highly secular, individualistic and.. for the lack of a better world.. neoliberal. Then again, RR Martin also thinks that a neoliberal such as Joe Biden would make a great president. RR Martin’s worship of secular neoliberalism plays a huge role in how his fictional universe “works” or doesn’t.

2] Now that we understand that the GOT universe is based in modern secular liberalism rather than traditional community-based ideologies, it is easy to see why there is basically no family loyalty or kinship in that series. This is also why everybody seems to be raping, torturing and killing anybody they can get their hands on- regardless of how such actions might affect their community reputation. So how does one behave in such an individualistic and modern society? For starters.. Daenerys would be incredibly stupid if she trusted any promises made by anybody in a position to potentially overthrow or murder her. To out it another way, if she wanted to rule Westeros from King’s landing, she pretty much has to exterminate every high-level official of the previous regime in that city and surrounding area. And this includes their family and children.

3] Her other competitors, the Stark family, is largely made up of ugly weirdos with serious blind-spots for treachery, a misplaced belief in their own moral superiority and exhibit a general lack of competence. Let us face it, even that crippled mystic guy hasn’t been able to do much other than make funny faces and mumble half-baked “prophecies”. Also, the general zeitgeist of that fictional universe is such that not getting rid of them after using them will almost certainly lead to some future betrayal or fatal misunderstanding. In fact, the death of all remaining members of that family in battle or soon afterwards would be the most desirable outcome. And ya.. I am talking about John Snow, Arya, Bran etc. Face it.. they are just future potential competitors and unlikely to change the system.

4] Most people in that city have known no ruling family other than the previous one. Under such conditions, retaining even the lower administration from the prior regime is risky- especially if you want to do some reforming. Although her ancestors built that city, Daenerys will always seen as a foreign ruler by the people of King’s Landing. But dead people cannot hate or plot against you. There is no real downside to wiping out every last inhabitant of the city, since they can be easily replaced by migration from neighbouring kingdoms. Furthermore, people from other kingdoms who will move in to rebuild the city and live there will have known no ruler of that city than Daenerys. This makes it far easier to start your new era on a positive note.

5] Nuking that city and reducing it to rubble allows Daenerys to rebuild the city from a clean slate. She can rebuild it to erase all signs of previous rulers and potential rivals. Most people who move in and rebuild the city will also be permanently indebted for providing them with a fresh start and will be far less likely to support rebellions than their predecessors. She can also pick and choose the ethnic balance of future city such that there will be enough minorities who dislike each other more than hate her. I know, this sounds cynical- but what were you expecting! She could also use the destruction of that city to extend the boundaries of its successor and modify it to increased trade and commerce, thus reducing the risk or rebellion even further.

6] In an individualistic, capitalist and neoliberal society (such as the one in RR Martin’s books), nobody will remember all those who were killed to create the new city- unless one can make a quick buck out of doing so. Don’t believe me.. look at how countries in North and South America treat their defeated and almost extinct indigenous people. Or take Australia, which used to classify its indigenous people as Fauna until the early 1970s. So ya.. nobody is going to miss all those dead people in King’s Landing. In fact, future generations of the new city might remember Daenerys as the founder of a glorious new empire or order and minimize all the morally dubious stuff she did to achieve that end. Don’t believe me? Read about the ‘Founding Fathers’ of USA.

In summary, nuking King’s landing using that dragon was probably the smartest and most rational thing Daenerys has ever done.

What do you think? Comments?

Conflict Between Right Wingers and Tech Monopolies Won’t End Well: 3

May 12, 2019 18 comments

A few months ago, I started a short series about why the conflict between right wingers and tech monopolies won’t end well. While the immediate reason for that series was the conspiracy by tech monopolies to deplatform Alex Jones, I knew that sooner or later there would be more instances of such high-handed behaviour by tech monopolies. As it happens, my allegedly pessimistic views on human beings and their pathetic institutions get validated almost every single time. Some of you might have heard that Roissy’s blog was recently banned. Apparently that particular blog was on WP, unlike self-hosted WP blogs who are constrained only by the availability of a willing DNS registrar and hosting provider. There are those, especially on the “left” who see this as some minor victory in the war against “hate speech”.. which is now basically whatever shrill SJWs do not want you to say in public. Others see it as good riddance since that blog had increasingly become full-bore racist and was frequented by even sadder racist nutcases.

Here is what I think about the whole situation and some of you won’t like to hear it. The right to free speech is about protecting the right to unpopular speech- even and especially if you do not agree with it. I am no fan of the racism, anti-semitism and nativism which increasingly filled up posts on that blog. Having said that, I support the right of Roissy to post crazy and repulsive stuff as long as it does not involve overtly illegal stuff (making specific threats towards specific people etc). In any case, people who post controversial stuff online are not making you go to their site or social media profile and read it. Some of you might think it odd that me, a non-white guy with a deep dislike for racism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination, would support the free speech rights of a blog that peddled many of those very things. Then again, I have read a bit more history than most of you to know that “public moralists” of all shades are power-hungry sociopaths who will not stop once the most objectionable people or stuff are gone.

Consider, for example, that the hilariously misnamed PATRIOT act passed after Sep 11, 2001 to combat “global terrorism” is now used almost exclusively in investigations of “drug trafficking” to target poor people of color. Or SWAT teams, first conceived to tackle rare instances of hostage taking, are now found in almost all larger police departments and usually used to murder non-violent (and usually non-white) citizens. Similarly, laws to deal with highly organised Italian mafia are now used to terrorize, murder and otherwise destroy the lives of poor and often completely innocent non-white people. You might also remember how the 1994 crime bill meant to combat fictitious urban “super-predators” ended up jailing and destroying the lives of millions of black men for “crimes” that would have been never prosecuted if they were suburban whites. My point is that all laws, rules and regulations meant to “protect” public morality, virtue and other non-tangible bullshit end up as tools of exploitation, profit and abuse for those pushing them.

It also my contention that the tech sector, especially tech monopolies are highly susceptible to behave in such a high-handed manner. Of course, the problem with behaving in such a manner is that the inevitable backlash will be especially brutal- and that previous term is not just a figure of speech. Let us first talk about why the information technology sector is unusually susceptible to high-handed and ultimately suicidal behaviour. See.. two types of persons are over-represented in information technology corporation- Aspies and SJWs. Yes, you hear that right- Aspies and SJWs. But why is that combination so problematic and ultimately suicidal? The simple and short answer is that both, Aspies and SJWs, do not posses a functional theory of mind– albeit for different reasons. Aspies, aka computer programmers aka software “engineers” are often seen as smart or intelligent people. The tragically funny part is that they are not.

The vast majority of computer programmers are closer to autistic savant artists and other autistic savants than people without such mental disabilities. While I am not denying their specific skills, a majority of people working in programming etc are what one might say.. suffering from a mild mentally disability. This is also why so many in that sector have libertarian economic leanings. I can appreciate this far better than most since I was a bit aspy as a kid but grew out if it. But most programmer and mathematically minded do not grow out it- largely because they lack the brain circuitry to appreciate what they do not possess- not unlike a child who was born blind or deaf. But why would this be a problem? After all, haven’t the founders of Google, FakeBook etc done very well- at least right now? A disability which lets you make a very nice salary in Silly Valley cannot be that bad.. right? The thing is.. keeping power is far harder than attaining it.

The next issue I am going to talk about will be obvious to most people, but may not register in the mind of tech Aspies. Have you noticed that information technology companies, out all types of corporations, treat their users and customers like shit? I am sure that most of you have come across tons of people complaining about FakeBook, Twatter, Google, Apple, Paypal etc. Did you notice the large tech monopolies missing from that list… Amazon, Netflix and to some extent Microsoft. But why is that so? The ‘so clever’ among you might say that this has something to do with you being the product for companies such as FakeBook and Google and the consumer for Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft. Others might say that this is because they can get away with it- and there is some truth to that. Let me posit a third option- connection or lack thereof to the physical world aka reality. And you will soon why I think that is the case.

Let me ask you another question- How many of you would walk into a some random bar, insult everybody you interacted with and try to start fights with them? Let us assume that you could somehow win the first few bar fights. Or consider randomly insulting people around you, for no good reason. Why won’t the vast majority of people behave in this manner, even if they could “win” the first few times. The simple, if tasteless, answer to that question is most people who are not Aspies understand real-world social dynamics. The majority of people understand that pissing off random people around yourself, for no good reason, carries a serious and rapidly increasing reputational cost. While it may not be much in the beginning, especially if you are rich, the many enmities you will make along the way will lead to your eventual downfall and demise. There is a reason that even Machiavelli advises rulers against mistreating their common subjects- lest it create fertile grounds for successful usurpers.

Even highly totalitarian, but somewhat successful, regimes such as those in the former eastern block understood that gross mistreatment of average people and frequently subjecting them to capricious power-crazy nutcases was fundamentally bad policy. This is also why the Chinese government actually cares about what its people want and think, in many cases far more so than USA. The problem with tech Aspies is that they can read history quite well but are mentally incapable of understanding it. In other words, they are unable to appreciate how their actions and behaviour make them hated and detested. As you will see in the next part of this series, this profound inability to read other people and their proximity to equally oblivious SJWs makes for a really bad combination, with potentially catastrophic results. In case you are wondering, the main reason Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft haven’t gone that far down this route has a lot to do with such behaviour having an immediate and marked negative effect on their business.

In the next part, I will write about how SJWs aka hyper-socialized sociopathic fakes and their involvement in the tech sector makes the effects of tech aspism far worse than it would have otherwise been. SJWs, academic leftists and post-modernists also lack a functional theory of mind- though for vastly different reasons than tech Aspies. As you see, the peculiar combination of tech aspism and SJWism induces way more backlash than either would have by itself.

What do you think? Comments?

Ben Shapiro Was Exposed as a Mediocre Fraud by a British Conservative

May 10, 2019 7 comments

Was going to post a short and quick piece on the recent deplatforming of Roissy by WordPress, but thought that the topic deserved more substantial treatment. I intend to write about it in next 2-3 days. So here is something else which I came across today, which is darkly comic for reasons that will soon be obvious. There is a good chance that most of you have some passing familiarity with an imp named Ben Shapiro. While it is tempting to poke fun at the level of insecurity Ben exhibits about his diminutive stature, I shall instead focus on how this pathetic imp got exposed as a mountebank by Andrew Neil, who happens to be a highly conservative British journalist.

Yes.. you heard that right. Ben Shapiro was exposed as a sad fraud by a CONservative. In case you want to see how little Ben got his ass handed to him, I had inserted links to a YouTube clip of that interview further down in this post. To quickly summarize, the loser who constantly pretends to be DESTROY others based on LOGIC and FACTS was woefully unprepared to defend his many nutty public positions such as Arabs being subhuman, non-Zionist Jews not being “real Jews” and women having no legal agency over their own bodies. While it would have been more desirable to have him exposed as a fraud and ‘snowflake by a progressive- it was far more entertaining to see that happen at the hands of an unimpeachable CONservative.

Some of you might have noticed that Ben Shapiro’s view on many social issues are very similar to those of Nazis and Fascists- which is.. well.. ironic. It was nice to see someone finally take him to task over them and expose him for being an intellectual lightweight with an especially thin skin. That it took a CONservative British journalist to finally DESTROY little Ben in such a manner does however tell you a lot about the sad state of American mainstream journalism. I mean.. some time ago, NYT wrote a puff piece about him in which he was depicted as some sort of philosophy wonk rather than a Koch-brother funded racist grifter. In summary, it is nice to see that little racist imp being DESTROYED by LOGIC and FACTS and exposed as a pathetic “snowflake”.

What do you think? Comments?

Trump Hastened Inexorable Demise of American Empire by a Decade: 1

May 9, 2019 10 comments

The world is full of idiots who keep chasing every new morsel of whatever passes for news, while almost deliberately ignoring larger trends at work- especially if the later contradict their existing mental model. While this intellectual deficiency is seen in all races, countries and eras of human history- it is especially prevalent in unstable and decaying societies who still mentally live in a previous (and often mythical) era. And yes.. I am talking about USA and its vassal states. The rest of this short series is about my contention that election of Trump and his presidency has sped up the inevitable demise of American Empire by at least a decade. However, it is important to note that he was not the first president to ‘preside’ over the inevitable demise of American Empire. That dubious honor goes to Richard Milhous Nixon.

Some of you might remember a few of my previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) about why USA has not won a real war against any semi-competent army or been able to successfully occupy any place beyond a few Latin-american countries since the end of WW2. Moreover the ability of USA to pull off successful coups (outside Latin-america) had dropped pretty dramatically since early 1960s. In retrospect, these should have been the first warning signs that American Empire came with an expiry date. At that time, almost nobody cared or believed this was the case because a long post-WW2 socio-economic boom, which in some parts lasted until mid-1990s, has ensured internal stability. Then again, everyone and their dog is smart, handsome or beautiful and invincible until winds of fortune start blowing in a different direction.

The full list of reasons why things started going bad for USA is rather long and beyond the scope of this post. Let us instead focus on a subset of those reasons, specifically how many decisions and actions of successive american governments has sped up this process- increasingly in an exponential manner. As late as the beginning of 21st century it appeared that the American Empire could go on (in some form) until the 2040s. However three events and their sequelae, which occurred almost 8 years apart, have drastically shortened the remainder of its potential life. It should be mentioned that such a fast decline is not uncommon- just think of where UK was in 1938 compared to where it ended up in 1948. Or the difference between USSR of 1982 and 1992. Declining empires are rather fragile and unable to withstand otherwise small setbacks.

The first of these major acts of self-inflicted stupidity came in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) in the immediate aftermath of that attack was one the dumbest possible moves. While there are those who want to believe that those colossally expensive mistakes were some fancy 4D chess moves, the judgement of reality is far harsher. Both those failed and expensive occupations ended up exposing something which every smart bully dreads- their lack of actual capability and hidden vulnerabilities. As some of you know, smart bullies never push hard enough to get into real fights because it is hard to maintain the image of cool dominance once you get your ass kicked hard.

To make a long story short, the failed occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan showed the rest of world that USA did not have the capability to win long and drawn-out insurgencies, even if they possessed magnitudes more military hardware and other resources than the insurgents. While it may not seem like a big deal in 2019, the idea that USA could not win against rag-tag local militia in 2004 was a massive shock to the egos of many flag-waving idiots.. I mean patriotic Americans. Countries such as Iran, Syria and DPRK took an even more important lesson from those two american debacles, namely that USA was fundamentally incapable of successful occupation or fighting insurgencies. As you will see, this had a huge impact on our present.

The next major act of self-inflicted stupidity took the form the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, or more precisely its aftermath. Prior to that crisis, a significant percentage of the world believed that the financial system of USA and its vassal states was run by smart and competent people in a reasonably safe manner. As it turns oust, GFC 2008 quickly and thoroughly destroyed global belief in the “american way” of running financial systems. While this loss of faith was less evident and slower to manifest itself in USA and west European vassal states, the rest of the world got the message loud and clear. If you don’t believe me, just look at how countries such as China accelerated internal investment and creating its own consumer class after 2008.

Of course, GFC 2008 had a major cultural impact in USA and its vassal states. There is a reason why Brexit won in 2015, Trump won in 2016 and why almost everyone born after 1970 seems to be into socialism. That is also why right-wing populist parties suddenly started winning seats in multiple European countries. All of this, however, is best left for another post. Getting back to the issue at hand, how exactly did the election of Trump speed up the inevitable demise of american empire by a decade? Some of you (especially ‘centrists’ such as MikeCA) might attribute this to Trump being a buffoon and laughing stock of anybody in the world with more than half-a-brain. Mike also likely wants to believe that ‘The West Wing’ could someday become reality.

While almost nobody denies that Trump is an amphetamine-abusing buffoon and braggart, those qualities by themselves are simply not sufficient to speed up the decline of American empire by a decade. The reason why even the first two years of his presidency has “achieved” what none of his predecessors could, has a lot to do with something that LIEbrals and establishment democrats don’t like to talk about. Indeed, the very decisions and actions which are now greasing the tracks for inevitable demise of American Empire happen to be the only things which establishment democrats like about Trump. In case you are wondering, I am referring to his tendencies to act as if the world is still stuck in the mid 1990s or perhaps 1950s. To understand what I am talking about, let me ask a question- one that very few are asking.

What is up with Trump’s neocon-on-steroids policy towards countries such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and China etc. What sort of idiot will enter into so many different conflicts at once? This is even more peculiar given his desire to “win” or at least appear to be “winning”. Let me rephrase that question- what is going through Trump’s mind to make him believe that he can antagonize so many different nations (including one with same number of nuclear weapons of USA and another with the world’s largest economy in real terms) and appear to “win”? Or ask yourself why Obama44 or Bush43 (especially the later) decided against getting involved in the sheer number and types of conflicts that the orange buffoon has gotten himself into?

The simple answer to that question is Bush43 experienced the fundamental weakness of american imperial power in a very personal manner, after his misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan ended as incredibly expensive defeats. While the village idiot from Texas was gung-ho about american power until late 2004, the stench of failure became too strong to ignore. That is why necons lost favor in the last two years of his presidency. But by then, the damage was already done and he is the reason why people voted for a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. Obama44 being somewhat smarter than Bush43 chose to not get involved in any big dustups around the world because he cared about his legacy, especially as it relates to lucrative lecture and book deals after his presidency. On the bright side, this ensured a relatively uneventful presidency.

Trump, as I have mentioned in previous posts is street smart, but very poor at strategic thinking. It does not help that he lacks the ability to think through problems systematically and to put it bluntly- likes to get high on his own supply of MAGA. Having assorted delusional idiots with no skin in the game such as Pompeo, Bolton etc does not help the situation. To make a long story short, it is very likely that the numerous conflicts Trump has entered into over past two years are going to backfire on his presidency in a synergistic manner. He seems unable to accept the hard limitations of an inexorably diminishing American Empire. Trump does not understand that American Empire is like an old ex-Boxer who thinks he can enter into a street brawl and win against multiple far nimbler and competent younger opponents, just because he is rich.

In the next part, I will tell you my thoughts on how this darkly comic attempt by Trump (and his flunkies) to enter into multiple brawls against nimbler and often equally powerful opponents might end- and what connection the outcomes might have with on the speed of diminution for American Empire.

What do you think? Comments?

Western ‘Leftists’ are Only Slightly Less Despicable than CONservatives

May 5, 2019 10 comments

Regular readers are well aware of my utter dislike, contempt and hatred for all CONservatives- regardless of their race and social class. The world would be a far better place if all of them and their progeny ceased on exist, one fine day. Many of you are also aware that I am no fan of so-called ‘liberals’ or as I like to call them, LIEbrals- because they are basically CONservatives who expouse socially progressive-sounding causes largely because they are a bit ashamed of being perceived as knuckle-draggers. In other words, LIEbrals are CONservatives who are not retarded and exhibit a basic level of self-consciousness, if only to project themselves as more “deserving” of their station in life. LIEbrals = we are better than southern and flyover state white-trash.

Let me now talk about the other group who I detest- though not with the intensity reserved for CONservatives and LIEbrals. I am talking about western ‘Leftists’ aka the losers with more self-conciousness than LIEbrals and CONservatives. But why dislike people that are kinda better than either LIEbrals and CONservatives. Aren’t they an improvement of some sort or at least a change in the right direction? Well.. they are, but it is not enough. See.. white people in early 20th century USA were ‘better’ than their counterparts from 300 or even 100 years prior. Unlike their predecessors, they did not bury women for witchcraft, openly practice slavery, enthusiastically support genocide of native people and were on threshold of extending voting rights to women.

However they still strongly believed in their alleged “racial superiority”, put considerable effort into immiserating black and other non-white people, did many nauseating things in support of maintaining racial purity, were the inspiration for Hitler and his Nazis and were otherwise a fairly loathsome bunch of people. Some of you might say that we should judge them by the standards of their era rather than contemporary ones. Fair enough.. but then shouldn’t we also judge Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan by the standards of first half of 20th century- which was a pretty dismal time in human history with all those other genocides, two world wars, inter-war conflicts, forced population exchanges etc. My point is, you have to draw the line somewhere.

So what do I despise about western ‘Leftists’? How are my views on them similar or different from those about LIEbrals and CONservatives? Well.. for starters, my feelings towards western ‘Leftists’ are rooted in dislike and contempt rather than hatred. Which is another way of saying that my major beef with them is about how they think, behave and see the world rather than their broader goals. So I am perfectly fine with legal equality irrespective of race and sex, socialism and wealth redistribution, decentralization and preventing public and private rent-seekers, progressive income and wealth tax-funded healthcare and education, non-corporate controlled universal basic income, legalization of drugs and prostitution, right to choose etc

At this point, some of you might throw up your hands and say “so why do you despise western ‘Leftists’ if you support the majority of their stated goals?”. Well.. keep reading.

1] The biggest problem with western ‘Leftists” today concerns their real identity and motivations. Contemporary western “leftists” are, by and large, careerist petite bourgeoisie. Almost every single prominent western ‘Leftist’ today seems to be somebody with multiple degrees in the liberal arts who spends an inordinate amount of effort trying to convince others that they alone are morally upright and virtuous.When is the last time you met a prominent western ‘Leftist’ who actually performed work which did not involve writing clever-sounding articles, books or indulging in scholarly-sounding pontification. Leftism was once a movement of the working classes, you know.. people who work to make a living. Today it is mostly a movement of weaselly apple-polishers trying to use ideology to advance their own career.

2] The current crop of western ‘Leftists’ (at least well-known ones) are almost exclusively derived from the professional upper-middle or aspiring middle class. They have no interest in problems of people from other.. should we say.. more ‘icky’ classes. They would rather protest for the right of transgender men to use female restrooms than bother with concrete proposals to eliminate racial discrimination in healthcare, housing and the so-called ‘criminal justice’ system. They believe that gender equality is achieved when more white women are hired in armed forces so that they can go half-way around the world to kill some more brown people. For them, a just immigration system is one which allows enough poor and desperate people into the country so they can then hire those same people at low wages to clean houses and take care of their kids.

3] It gets worse. There is, you see, a considerable overlap between LIEbrals and western ‘Leftists’. Indeed, one of the easiest way for a LIEbral to elevate his or her social standing today (at least in their mind) is by supporting allegedly progressive causes- but only fashionable ones. So dressing your 6-year old non-stereotypical male child as a girl because ‘she’ could be trans is the socially appropriate way of showing one’s “wokeness”. However these same people will do nothing beyond pay some lip service for issues such as children without adequate healthcare, housing or food- because those things are associated with ‘icky’ people. They will donate some cheap toys to a charity around Christmas rather than ask why such ‘charity’ is necessary.

4] Western ‘Leftists’ are overwhelmingly white and the few minorities in their ranks are there for the grift.. I mean career advancement. Face it, nowadays you cannot have a self-congratulatory award ceremony or banquets where people give each other prizes for “empowering” each other without a few non-white faces. Look at how far we have come.. a corporation which extorts many thousands of desperate people while awarding billions to its upper management has finally hired a Black, Asian or Indian CEO? And he or she is also gay.. how “woke”! What about those tens of thousands extorted people. Well.. it is all due to the “free market” and we cannot do anything about it. And remember.. everything can be “fixed” with neoliberal wonkery and “data science”.

5] One of the most amusing, and telling, aspect of the contemporary western ‘Leftist’ mindset is how easily they stop supporting a cause when systematically abused and victimized people resort to a little violence. According to these ‘Leftists’ a group of black people protesting systemic abuse and occasional murder by white cops become unworthy if they break even a single shop window. Did I mention how strongly these ‘Leftists’ believe in “gun control” or how they insist everyone should respect “authority” and “experts”. Or how they masturbate over shitty Tesla electric cars, the latest puff-piece about “machine learning” or “artificial intelligence”.. basically anything that is seen as fashionable and “woke” enough. In other words, western “Leftism” = performance art.

6] Western ‘Leftists’ never stop giving useless or bad advice to non-white people and people in non-white countries- who find it darkly comic. These ‘Leftists’ want everyone else to give up their lifestyle and conveniences for the “environment” and to prevent “climate change” but are loath to change anything significant about their own lifestyle. And remember, you are a ‘heretic’ and ‘denier’ if you doubt the veracity of this central sacrament of their secular apocalyptic cult. Of course, they could just come out and admit that they are racist and part of a declining and rapidly diminishing race. But as we all know, western ‘Leftists’ are all post-racial, totally non-patronizing group of very “diverse”, “woke” and “highly educated” people- who can never make a mistake and give awesome TEDx presentations.

In summary, much of what passes for ‘Leftism’ in the west today is reformulated LIEbralism with new buzzwords and more performance art. Ironically, this does not fool anybody outside their group. And now you know why I find them despicable and repulsive, though somewhat less so than generic LIEbrals and CONservatives.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: May 5, 2019

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

Indoor Amateur Cuties: Apr 27, 2019 – Amateur cuties lounging around the house.

Busty Topless Beach Cuties: Apr 29, 2019 – Busty, topless and thick cuties at the beach.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Slavoj Žižek is Just Another CONartist aka Modern “Public Intellectual”

May 2, 2019 7 comments

Some time ago, a reader asked me about my thoughts on Slavoj Žižek. I believe this request was linked to a recent public debate between him and Jordan Peterson. As some might remember, I had previously written a short series about the another CONartist aka Jordan Peterson. And let me be upfront about something else.. I have always seen “public intellectuals” as nothing more than mountebanks, frauds and house slaves. To be clear, I am not implying that every famous intellectual is a fraud. People such as Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Nassim Taleb etc achieved a lot in their fields of expertise before becoming famous intellectuals. Now contrast them to alleged “public intellectuals” such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Charles Murray and other TED-talker types.

But what really separates people such as Sagan, Feynman, Hawking or Taleb from mountebanks such Tyson, Dawkins, Harris and Murray. For starters, people in the first category derive most of their livelihood from being really good at whatever they do for a living. Sagan would have been an world-famous astrophysicist even if he never written a single popular science book or made a TV show. Feynman and Hawking would still be world-renowned physicists even if they hadn’t written a single popular book. Taleb had made tens of millions at least a decade before writing his first book. Those in the second category, in sharp contrast, derive most of their livelihood from being famous and known as “intellectuals- like how Kim Kardashian is famous for being famous.

Let us now move on to the topic of Žižek, or to be more precise- why he is a mediocre CONartist aka contemporary “public intellectual”. But before we go there, let me briefly describe how much of his content I went through before reaching that conclusion. The short version is that I viewed over 12 hours of his lectures (made over a period of at least 6 years) on YouTube. In addition, I read the transcripts of over a dozen interviews and other articles written by him over the past decade. Which is another way of telling you that I did not reach my conclusions about him lightly or because of the opinions of other people. While he is not as big a fraud as Peterson, Dawkins, Harris and Murray- he is a fraud, nonetheless. And here is why..

1] If you have watched more than a few minutes of Žižek talking in public, you will notice that he has some long-standing neurological issues affecting control of his upper body- especially hands. While there is no point in speculating on the likely cause, it is especially apparent when he is talking into a camera. After watching many of his videos, I noticed something even more peculiar- namely, that his movement disorder is far less pronounced when he is not looking at the camera. Also, his long-standing condition was under far better control before he became famous. While some of you might think that this might have something to do with aging or his underlying condition progressing, I think there is a different explanation.

Žižek’s audience until a few years ago was more local and European than it is today. But what could this possibly have to do with the public manifestation of his condition. Well.. audiences in Anglo and some Asian societies are far more likely to associate wisdom with an odd physical appearance and body language than continental European societies. This is why gurus, spiritual leaders and other assorted godmen with unusual or distinctive physical appearances are far more common in some societies than others. While he probably did not go down this road deliberately, Žižek seems to have realized that his persona gets a bigger reaction and audience if he lets his neurological condition manifest itself to the fullest extent.

2] If you have watched some of Žižek’s videos from start to end, you might have found out about his appointments at many ‘elite’ universities in the anglosphere. But why would these institutions, operating under the paradigm of neoliberalism, bother to acknowledge the existence of a self-described Marxist let alone pay for that association? While there are those who might attribute this to western universities appreciating free thought, a more likely explanation is that Žižek is harmless- like Noam Chomsky. In other words, their association with him carries no risk while simultaneously allowing them to pretend that they are intellectually tolerant.

You might have also noticed that his philosophical musings are about the pervasiveness of capitalism throughout the contemporary world. And while he points out the problems inherent in this setup- he artfully dodges any talk about how the status quo can be changed. In my opinion, this goes a long way towards explaining why so many ‘elite’ western universities are perfectly OK with inviting him as a speaker. Žižek is eerily reminiscent of all those public figures in pre-1860 USA who argued that slavery was inhumane and an abomination, but had no plans or desire on how to end it- largely because they were also profiting from its existence.

3] Another example of Žižek lazy and conventional thinking comes from his repeated insistence that China is a capitalist country managed by a tyrannical communist party. As any person, with some objectivity and more than half-a-brain, can figure out- the Chinese government is far more interested in improving the quality of life for its own people than contemporary democratic regimes in the west. While this might be for less than altruistic reasons, the end results are too hard to ignore- except perhaps for some white “public intellectuals” in west. And as mentioned in another post, the type of governance system one sees in China is common to many east-Asian countries, who have also done quite well. We can all see who has failed and who has prevailed.

Žižek’s description of the Chinese system as capitalist becomes even more laughable once you start appreciating how fundamentally different it is from anything in the west. For example- it is the government rather than capitalists who decide how things are run in China. Those foolish enough to believe that their riches protect them from the government in that country learn that is not the case, very swiftly. The Chinese government spends tens of billions on tons of seemingly unprofitable infrastructure projects, which almost always turn out to be profitable a decade or so after they were built. They invest tens of billions in acquiring competencies in multiple areas that are supposedly unprofitable for them, but which almost always become highly profitable in the next decade. And China is hardly alone in such policies.

Both Japan and South Korea implemented watered-down versions of these policies to great effect many years before China went down that path. It is telling that Žižek seems unable to imagine (privately or publicly) ways of doing things that are significantly superior to those prevalent in the west. Maybe he really likes the Kool-Aid of neoliberalism in spite of his vocal protestations to the contrary. Perhaps he has far more in common with people like Christopher Hitchens and Niall Ferguson than we (or him) would prefer to believe.

4] A further example of Žižek intellectual laziness can be seen in how he worships a lot of useless “technological” progress which has occurred in past 30-40 years and attributes it to capitalism. Let us face it.. there hasn’t been really improved that much over past 3-4 decades, and almost all of it has to do with stuff like reduction in rates of cigarette smoking, improvements in car design and occupational health, better drugs for hypertension and better management of heart attacks and strokes. Did I mention that rates of improvement in life-expectancy in developed countries since 1980 have no correlation with degree of technologification of healthcare in those countries.

Furthermore, vast majority of alleged technological breakthroughs made over past 3-4 decades from human genome sequencing, stem cell therapy, gene transfer therapies, new gene editing techniques, new drugs for most cancers have turned out be either outright failures or far less consequential than first thought. We still don’t have electric cars that can effectively compete with gasoline (or diesel) fueled ones outside major cities. Renewable energy is still an expensive joke. We don’t have anything better than chemical and a few piddly ion rocket engines for space exploration. Oh ya.. and integrated circuits, CPU design and the internet are the result of government spending money on seemingly impossible ideas.

In summary, Žižek is a secret worshiper of neoliberalism who has learned to maximize his earnings and popularity by pretending to be a Marxist and Hegelian (while accentuating his physical shortcomings in order to appear more authentic). Along the way, he keeps interpreting the world around him in ways meant to flatter the pre-existing biases and prejudices of his main audience. Then again, this is what most “public intellectuals” do and have always done.

What do you think? Comments?