Archive for January, 2020

Some Initial Thoughts about the Recent Coronavirus Outbreak in China

January 31, 2020 12 comments

More than one commentator on my previous post wanted me to write something about the recent Coronavirus outbreak in China, especially regarding how bad it really is or might become in the near future. Since useful and concrete information about this outbreak has been overshadowed by a lot of racist mental projections in the declining west, I thought it was a good idea to write down my initial thoughts about the situation. FYI, one of my degrees is in microbiology. So let us talk about about this outbreak, starting with what we know for sure about the virus in question.

1] The Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) behind this outbreak is fairly close in its sequence to one which caused the SARS outbreak in 2003. And yes, it is closer to some known bat coronaviruses, but not others. Also, both SARS and 2019-nCoV almost certainly jumped from bats to human hosts. The odd thing, though, is that most bat species in Wuhan are currently hibernating and the initial outbreak occurred at a seafood market, suggesting that another mammalian species acted as an intermediate host between bats and humans.. perhaps a sick cat, dog etc.

2] Initial sequence analysis of virus samples from multiple patients and comparing them to each other strongly suggests that the jump from bats to humans occurred very recently, mostly likely within the past 2-3 months. Interestingly it seems to bind to the same human protein (for entry into cells) as the coronavirus which caused SARS. Given the fairly high similarity in sequence, same protein used for entry into cells and similar clinical disease produced by 2019-nCov and SARS we can make an educated guess that many other characteristic (infectivity etc) are also similar. Think of 2019-nCOV as a sibling or cousin of SARS.

3] It therefore follows that 2019-nCov is likely to be similar in its infectivity to the one which caused SARS in 2003. While some preliminary analysis by western scientists pretend that the former is more infectious than the later, everything we know about viruses tells us that they are very similar viruses which use the same protein to gain entry into human cells. I do not expect 2019-nCov to be significantly harder to control than SARS. The key word is ‘harder’ as 2019-nCov might end up infecting more people than SARS- but ease of control will be similar.

4] So far, the percentages of 2019-nCov infections ending in death is around 10%, and is similar to what we saw over the entirety of SARS outbreak. It is well known that viral strains which cause severe infections and high rates of mortality evolve into ones that cause mild infections and low rates of mortality because the former burn themselves out due to lack of new hosts. We can therefore expect the mortality and morbidity rates due to this virus to drop over the course of time due to better quarantine (corrals more aggressive strains) and treatment (lower mortality). Some of you might have noticed that the increase in number of deaths is now far slower than the number of confirmed infections- which is a good sign.

5] It is highly unlikely that 2019-nCov was developed by China as a biological weapon for the simple reason that biological weapons are, for the lack of better words, stupid and dangerous. See.. unlike nuclear weapons (which China posses), biological weapons cannot be controlled once unleashed and are likely to kill as many on your side as the other side. This is especially so, if there is no readily available vaccine or decent drugs to treat that infection. Furthermore, modern scientific techniques allow us to track back their creation to a degree that was unimaginable in even as late as the 1980s. Being greedy is not the same as being stupid.

6] Most hype about 2019-nCov has a lot to do with the increasingly rapid decline of the dying west. To make matters worse, it is now obvious that the western system of corporation-controlled capitalism is vastly inferior to the Chinese system of state-controlled and directed “capitalism”. In case you think otherwise, tell me how people similar to Trump (fraudulent right-wing populists) are increasingly getting elected in western countries. Every white idiot (and non-white idiot from subservient countries) expressing public alarm about 2019-nCov outbreak is subconsciously or consciously driven to do so because of a combination of racism and the unspoken recognition that their own system is in terminal decline with no realistic hope of recovery.

7] To be clear, I am not minimizing the potential problems this outbreak could cause. Having said that, the Chinese system is probably the most capable of actually stopping such an outbreak. As mentioned above, having a state-controlled system of governance not beholden to corporations and other short-sighted moneyed interests allows you to get things done and devote resources in ways that are impossible for corporation-controlled “democracies” such as USA, not to mention semi-functional anarchies such as India. You can be certain that Chinese government will things done, regardless of the financial cost and suppression of worthless “human rights”.

What do you think? Comments?

The 1990s was Last Great Decade for People Living in USA and West: 1

January 26, 2020 15 comments

Here is a series I first contemplated writing about five years ago, though the core idea occurred to me a bit before that and in an unexpected place. See.. spending too much time looking at the less frequented parts of the internet often results in me noticing unusual correlations, trends and patterns which escape the attention of most people. About seven years ago, I was going through a newsgroup about new large architectural projects all over the world and noticed an odd trend. Increasingly the most interesting and large building projects in the world were in Asia, not North America or Europe. Some of you might attribute this to Asia finally catching up to the West, and initially considered that possibility. Then I noticed something else.. most of the few large building projects in the West were increasingly way over budget and took far longer than expected. More interestingly, the results were usually of poor quality and full of poor design choices.

And then I started noticing this same basic trend in many other areas, from drug discovery and computer technology to video games, movies and music. It was as if the past 15-20 years have been one continuous blur of stagnation if you were living in USA or any other western country. Some of you might say that smartphones, “machine learning” and other assorted bullshit is a sign of progress. But is it really? Think about it.. Pocket PCs running Windows Mobile could be used to browse the web, check email, play games, watch movie clips, take photos, utilize GPS and many more things almost 20 years ago. The biggest “advance” smartphones represent is that they are permanently connected to high-speed cellular networks because data rates are now very low. Has all that hype about “machine learning”, “deep learning” and “AI” translated into any worthwhile improvement in your quality of life? Can you think of a counter example?

While I would like to start this series by talking about how technology has stagnated, a better (more popular) place to start would be how cultural products has either stagnated gotten worse. While trends in music and video games will be addressed in subsequent posts, we will focus on trends in films and TV in this post. But before we go there, let us first define the 1990s. In my opinion, the 1990s began on December 26, 1991 and ended on September 11, 2001 though it kinda dragged on until August 31, 2005. The period between those dates was the last time the west (especially USA) was dominant and relatively prosperous. As you will see, these dates define that decade in many fields. It is as if this time-span was the last hurrah for the western socio-economic model including neo-liberalism (and neo-conservatism).

Now let us get back to the main focus of this post, namely the almost complete stagnation of creativity in western films and TV shows (including online offerings). Here is a question- Do you remember any film or TV show released within the past 15 years that was not a direct derivative of something released earlier? Do you remember anything financially successful or unsuccesful that was not a direct derivative of something from before 2006? But why does this matter? Well.. because almost decade in the century before 2006 witnessed multiple major new trends that were not a direct derivative of something from the past one. To be fair, some of it was due to technological advances and changes in social mores. But much of it was driven by people experimenting with new ways to present novel material. Confused? Let me explain..

Consider the 1920s, with german expressionist cinema (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, Pre-Code Hollywood movies, Russian Cinema (Battleship Potemkin, October). Can anybody deny that these represented new ways of making and editing films, not to mention the fact that they tackle hitherto untackled subject matter- at least in cinema. Or take the 1930s with its classic monster movies, Hollywood musicals, Disney Cartoons, Leni Riefenstahl’s documentaries etc. The 1940s had Film Noir and other memorable movies such as Citizen Kane, It’s a Wonderful Life, Casablanca etc. To be clear, I am not suggesting that previous decades were full of good, let alone original, movies. But it is clear that every decade in the century prior to 2006 saw the emergence of new and influential trends in cinema. However, we haven’t really seen anything similar occurring in the past 15 years.

The 1960s had tons of new trends, as did the 1970s. Even the 1980s had their new trends from low-budget horror movies to summer action blockbusters. There was much innovation in western cinema for a century before 2006. But the something, or more than one thing, happened western cinema became boring, repetitive and (most importantly) forgettable. I have briefly touched on some of these issues in my post about the current rash of film remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels and I sort of started talking about this topic in a post a few months ago– but never got around to building on it. And yes, I am aware that there are broader sociological trends at work. But whichever way you try to explain, it is hard to argue that the past fifteen years saw the alsmot total stagnation of creativity in western cinema and TV shows.

Don’t believe me? Well.. here are some facts. Most of the LOTR trilogy was filmed in New Zealand between October 11, 1999 and December 22, 2000, and the first movie in that series came out on November 20, 2001. The first X-men movie was released on July 14, 2000. The first film in the highly successful Spider Man franchise came out on May 3, 2002. The Matrix was released in 1999, as were the following important movies: Star Wars: Episode I, Office Space, Election, The Mummy, American Pie, The Blair Witch Project, The Sixth Sense, The Green Mile, Fight Club, American Beauty, Sleepy Hollow and many more. 1998 saw the release of important movies such as The Truman Show, Armageddon, Deep Impact, 1998 version of Godzilla, The Big Lebowski, Wild Things, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and many more.

The first Austin Powers movie came out in 1997, the first Jurassic Park in 1993. The first Scream movie came out in 1996 and the first I Know What You Did Last Summer in 1997. The first Toy Story came out in 1995 and the first Shrek movie in 2001. Can you think any equivalents in post 2005-era? Oh, and even the 40-year-old virgin came out in 2005. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy came out in 2004. Superbad was filmed in 2006 and had been under development since 2000. Once again, I could keep going on and on- but you get my point. Pretty much every single major movie released in past 15 years can with very few exceptions directly trace its roots to the pre-2005 era. In the next part of this series, I will show how that the same is true for TV shows including their streaming variants. We will also start going into why this major socio-cultural-economic shift (aka stagnation) began in earnest around the mid-2000s.

What do you think? Comments?

UFOs might be Robotic Interplanetary Probes from Other Star Systems

January 22, 2020 5 comments

About two years ago, I wrote a short series about my thoughts on the ‘ancient astronaut’ theory. To make a long story short, the vast majority of stuff attributed to visits by ancient astronauts is much easier to explain without such intervention. Around that time, I also wrote a a post about the continued popularity of “Ancient Aliens” type TV shows. Having said that, I am skeptical about the vast majority of UFO sightings, the key words being ‘vast majority’. See.. the thing is.. over the many years I have been an amateur astronomer, I have seen (on only a couple of occasions) objects in the sky which moved around in a manner that was incompatible with currently feasible propulsion technologies. In other words, they were UFOs by definition.

Over the past couple of years, many of you might have also heard about more than one video of UFOs shot from navy aircraft (link 1, link 2 , link 3). Without going into too much detail, over thee years there have been numerous instances of navy pilots witnessing objects which display speed and maneuverability characteristics that exceeds what any known aircraft and human pilots are capable of performing or tolerating. Moreover, these unidentified flying objects are clearly aware of the presence of human piloted aircraft in their vicinity. While it would be tempting to believe that these UFOs are proof of some secret government program, the objects in question exhibit speed, acceleration and maneuverability characteristics which preclude human operators and propulsion dependent on currently feasible technologies, which is a fancy way of saying they are unlikely to be made by humans. So what are they doing flying about in our atmosphere?

Well.. here is my theory. Imagine that you are a species which has reached the technological level to travel between stars. Now ask yourself a simple question- what would be the most optimal way to explore stellar systems within your reach? Would you visit each and every system that you could travel to in person OR would you send “unmanned” probes that were essentially autonomous to survey them- especially the less important ones. My point is that it is far more discreet and less resource intensive to use “unmanned” probes for surveying and keeping tabs on planets in most star systems. Visiting in person makes sense only if you are interacting with another species that is at a comparable level of technological development. Also anybody who can travel between stars can almost certainly pack a lot of intelligence within such probes.

The UFOs we see in our atmosphere are, therefore. most likely ‘daughter’ probes meant for close-up exploration of planets. They are likely carried near their destination by larger ‘mother’ probes which travel between star systems. This might explain the less frequent sightings of larger UFOs releasing and then collecting smaller UFOs that fly much closer to the surface. Of course, there is a chance that all of this is just part of a big hoax or coverup. However, everything we know about UFOs thus far, suggests that a very small percentage of them are real and not controlled and manufactured by humans. Think of them as extremely advanced and capable equivalents of the unnamed probes we ourselves use to explore planets within the solar system.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jan 21, 2020

January 21, 2020 Leave a comment

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

Amateur Eye Contact BJs: Jan 15, 2020 – Amateur cuties giving serious eye contact.

Amateur Bathtub Booties: Jan 19, 2020 – Curvy amateur cuties posing in bathtubs.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Interesting Plotholes with Comic Potential in ‘Dracula’ by Bram Stoker

January 20, 2020 2 comments

In the past, I have written a couple of posts about the novel ‘Dracula’- specifically concerning location of Poenari Castle and how HBO or Netflix should make a miniseries consisting of a faithful adaption of the original material. This post is about something a bit different- specifically, all the plotholes within that novel which have potential for comedy or an alternative retelling. As you will see, there is much in that story which could be spun either way..

1] The book does not contain any reference to the presence of a washroom or receptacles for that purpose. In the 1890s (when it was set) such facilities or receptacles were maintained and cleaned by servants. So what was going on at Castle Dracula? Was the Count also cleaning and emptying Harker’s chamber pots? Does anybody see the comic potential in this plothole?

2] How does the Count get his hands on fresh food, especially meat, to cook for Harker? This is especially relevant since the novel is set in an era when domestic refrigeration was basically nonexistent, especially in a remote corner of what is present-day Romania. So did he have to trade with people in surrounding villages or did he just take whatever he needed?

3] In the novel, there is a period between 31st May and 17th June, when the Count seems to to have taken away Harker’s diary and other writing material. So, did Harker ever ask Dracula about that incident. Also, was there more writing material in the castle library? And on what material did he write the entry for 31st May? An interesting plothole.. isn’t it?

4] How did Dracula get the idea of moving to London in the late 1890s? What stopped him from doing so at a previous date? Also, why did he choose London rather than another large European city such as Vienna or Paris? And why stop at Europe. why did he not choose New York or some other large city in the Americas? Would make an interesting alternative storyline.

5] If Dracula has to interact with humans to get food for Harker, books, magazines, newspapers etc.. why didn’t he get somebody to periodically clean and repair his castle. The guy certainly had more than enough money and self-control to not kill the help. Or even better.. why not do it himself or get his three useless vampire-wives to do it for him? Has comedy potential..

6] What did Dracula do for all the centuries before he decided to move to London? Did he not get bored of going through the same dammed routine every single day? Given that Dracula, even in the novel, is not a mindless killer.. how did he entertain himself? Yes, I am aware that he had a library, but wouldn’t a man of action (even if he was undead) feel cooped up in that old castle?

7] Given that the three female vampires in the novel are just insufferable as living women, what was the dynamics of the relationship between them and Dracula? Why didn’t Dracula just get rid of them and pay for female sexual company. Face it, there were lot of poor and attractive living women in the nearby town and villages who would have sex with a vampire for the right price.

Can you think of any more potential plotholes in that novel?

What do you think? Comments?

Some Updates on the Accuracy of Recent Ballistic Missile Strikes by Iran

January 16, 2020 14 comments

In past couple of weeks, I have written a few posts (link 1, link 2, link 3 and link 4) about recent development in the Middle-East, specifically the rapidly deteriorating relations between Iran and USA.. which are now deep in negative territory. To be fair, they have never been close to positive territory since the 1979 revolution which overthrew their american puppet ruler. However recent developments in that region, specifically the assassination of Qasem Soleimani have pushed the course of events into what is now an irreversible pathway which results in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and ICBMs within next few years, at the very least. However too many retarded and old white american jingos are busy deluding themselves into believing that Trump had “contained” Iran or some other bullshit fantasies likely fueled by reading too much fantasy aka Tom Clancy novels. Meanwhile events in the real world are increasingly pointing to a very different outcome.

As many of you know, after the assassination of Soleimani, Iran launched over a dozen ballistic missiles at two (or three?) american bases in Iraq. The majority were directed at the Al Assad Airbase in Iraq, which was allegedly where the drone that targeted Soleimani was launched from. While many “objective” western commentators are busy pretending that the strikes were not effective or accurate. Most american jingos also seem to have swallowed that bullshit, largely because it appears to validate whatever delusion they want to believe. Let us face it, telling people lies they want to hear has always been a pathway to fame, money and respectability. In fact, that has always been the modus operandi for priests of every single traditional and secular religion throughout human history. But let us get back to topic at hand..

As it turns out, the Iranian SRBM (Short Range Ballistic Missile) strikes were far more accurate than almost all “credentialed experts” were willing to accept- especially in public. One Iranian missile obliterated a housing trailer at the Ain al-Assad air base. Another missile destroyed a dining facility, which had been closed on the night of the attack as a precautionary measure but would normally have been open at that time. Given that the base in question is fairly large, the fact that Iran was able to accurately hit specific individual buildings known to used by american personnel tells you a lot about how accurate their missiles are under real-life conditions. But why does it matter? Well for starters, it confirms what Iran has been telling the world about the capability of its ballistic missiles. And we already know from that attack on Saudi oil facilities in 2019, that their cruise missiles are also accurate enough to pick out building sized targets.

But what are the real-life implications of Iran having hundreds to thousands of missiles (ballistic and cruise) accurate and long-ranged enough to target individual buildings within a thousand or two thousand miles of the Iranian border? To understand that, let me ask you a question.. Do you know the difference between Combat Radius and Ferry Range for an aircraft? To summarize, combat radius is the maximum distance you can fly on a military mission with a standard combat payload and still expect to return to the airbase you took off from. In contrast, the ferry range measures how far an unladen aircraft with maximum fuel can fly in one direction with about 10% fuel left at the time of expected landing. As it turns out the vast majority of modern american combat aircraft have a combat radius of less than 800 miles (~ 1300 km). And this is not just an american thing, as similar aircraft from other countries have about the same combat range.

In other words, the ability to bomb Iran around the clock would require USA to station aircraft, crew, support staff and equipment within the range of Iranian missiles that are accurate enough to consistently destroy individual buildings at that distance. See.. in previous conflicts such as the two Iraq wars, their opponent simply did not have missiles accurate enough to blow up individual building-sized targets at that range. In contrast to that, Iran has thousands of missiles accurate enough to make it basically impossible for USA to safely use airbases within the combat radius of most aircraft in its inventory. Now some of you might say.. what about using B-52s or B-1s based in Diego Garcia with ALCMs. Well.. if you did that Iran would start targeting important buildings, power stations, water desalination plants and airports all over the Middle-East, including Israel.

As some of you might know, there are millions of expats (including westerners) living in Gulf States. Try to imagine the chaos that such missile hits could create in cities such as Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Riyadh, Jeddah, Dammam, Khobar etc. Heck, even if Iran hit a few major buildings in each city, there would be an exodus of millions who would want to flee those cities immediately. Given that all those cities are in countries which are basically arid deserts, even a limited escalation could cause a humanitarian catastrophe in that region- to say nothing about its effect on political stability in that region. And yes, it would totally disrupt the flow of oil and gas from those countries- even if the facilities themselves were not hit. To make a long story short, the USA will have to start providing large-scale humanitarian aid to gulf states starting the day after it attacks Iran. Then there is the small matter of global oil availability and prices.

But why does any of this matter again? Well.. because the current occupant of the white house is an orange buffoon under political stress due to the bullshit scam of impeachment who is advised by christian doomsday-types (Pompeo, Pence etc) and Zionist neocons (too many to name) whose grasp on reality is tenuous- at best. Also, wars often start in the most unexpected ways and cannot be controlled or moderated once unleashed. It could get ugly very quickly.

What do you think? Comments?

Couple Of Obvious Predictions about Potential Military Conflicts in 2020

January 12, 2020 9 comments

Since making predictions about the future is often the main reason for people writing online, let me make a couple of really obvious predictions about potential military conflicts in 2020. To make things easy, I am going to restrict myself to those which directly involve the USA- because there is no shortage of potential military conflicts which don’t involve USA. For this post, I have chosen the two most obvious, and long-standing, conflicts which this country is involved in- and have the highest potential for disastrous flareups. But before we go there, let us talk about the common thread which runs through both of them- namely, the inability of american establishment to accept that their empire is circling the drain and that it is not 1991 or 2002.

Irrespective of what the american establishment believes, the power of its empire has been in a terminal downward spiral since Sep 11, 2001. It is important to note that there are many reasons for this death spiral, and most have nothing to do with spending on military matters. In fact, one could make the argument that the ideologies of neoliberalism and financialization have made a much larger contribution (directly and indirectly) to loss of power by the dying american empire than increased defense spending or development of newer weapons by other countries. I plan to address this particular topic in an upcoming series, but getting back to the one at hand- why is the american establishment so deeply in denial about the rapidly diminishing power of its empire?

Once again, there are many reasons- but the most important comes down to the consequences of acknowledging reality. See.. the cushy and sinecured livelihood of the american establishment is totally dependent on their ability to convince the public (at least most of them) that “USA is still number 1”. To put it bluntly, they would lose all their power and status the instant most people in this country realized that USA is not a superpower, let alone the only one. And this is irrespective of what it still spends on weapon systems, USA ceased to be a superpower about a decade ago when the Chinese economy and their industrial capability surpassed them. In case you want to understand my supporting argument in a bit more detail, here is a short series.

But getting back to the topic at hand, how does the profound inability of american establishment to inhabit the real world make military conflict more likely? Well.. let us start by talking about the peculiar situation between DPRK and USA since Trump and Kim Jong-un decided to first meet in mid-2018. While this first face-to-face meeting between Kim Jon-un and Trump in Singapore was a big step forward, at least diplomatically, subsequent meetings haven’t produced anything beyond photographs of both men shaking hands. But why not? Shouldn’t this big symbolic have resulted in worthwhile progress on real-life issues between the two countries? What is main stumbling block for real improvement in relations between DPRK and USA?

In my opinion, it comes to the american establishment unwillingness to accept reality, at multiple levels. See.. after watching american behavior and actions between 1991 and 2003, only an idiot would trust any treaty signed with it. Which is another way of saying that DPRK is not going to give up its nuclear weapons and ICBMs.. ever. Let me remind you that DPRK went down the path to acquiring nukes only after 2003, after watching USA invade Iraq. Between 1994-2003, DPRK was interested in acquiring nukes but not seriously committed to that goal. If the idiots in DC had lived in the real world, and behaved accordingly, they could have achieved their alleged goal of denuclearizing DPRK. But their whiteman egos prevented them from offering any compromise which would be acceptable to DPRK, and that opportunity was lost forever after 2003.

Flash-forward to today and DPRK has thermonuclear warheads and the means to reliably deliver them to any american metropolitan area of its choice. And guess what.. both countries bordering it (also nuclear powers) aka China and Russia are fine with it, largely because USA has been also busy antagonizing them for over a decade. No amount of sanctions have changed that outcome and none will. It should also be noted that at this stage Kim Jong-un is fully aware that there will never be any worthwhile relief to economic sanctions by USA and has chosen a different path for his countries future. I would add that previous attempts by idiots such as Bush43 and Obama44 to wait for the “inevitable collapse” of the DPRK government have failed miserably.

So why do I think that this conflict might heat up in 2020? Well.. because KJU has indicated his desire to restart testing of newer ICBMs, and maybe even nukes- and he is a man of his words. Expect KJU to restart testing long-ranged missiles, specifically solid-fueled ICBMs sometime this year. He is fully aware that doing so will make Trump look weak and ineffectual, but he does not care because he has an insurance policy- aka enough nukes and missiles to reliably target large urban centers in Japan and USA. The real question then is, how will Trump and the delusional and largely Zionist neocons around him response to such actions in an election year and under the shadow of his impeachment. It will be interesting to watch..

Then there is the conflict with Iran, which I have written about previously (link 1, link 2 and link 3). Without going into a ton of detail, it is fair to say that Israel and USA are trying to provoke a war with Iran. Given economic sanctions imposed against that country and the fact that Iranian leaders are not idiots to wait them out when they have other options- a conflict is likely sooner than later. The bone-headed Zionist-inspired assassination of Soleimani is not going to make war less likely. Furthermore Iran has demonstrated that its ballistic and cruise missiles are now very accurate. To put it another way, it will be basically impossible for USA to conduct airstrikes or even house troops within a thousand km (or more) of The Iranian border.

Let me remind you that Saddam never had missiles that were as numerous, accurate and varied as what Iran posses today and its domestic air defense system is no slouch either. To put it bluntly, it is not realistic for USA to launch a successful land-based invasion of Iran. Also, any airstrikes against targets in Iran will almost immediately result in the war spreading to countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia. Since I do not wish to repeat my previous posts, let’s just say that a conventional war against Iran would be uncontrollable and bad for the economy of west-European countries, who will quickly find out how important all that imported oil is for running their economies. By now most of you might be thinking- won’t cooler heads prevail? Well.. maybe they will, but history suggest another possibility.

If you have ever read the history of large and consequential wars within the last hundred or so years, one thing quickly becomes obvious- most were not started intentionally and almost nobody expected them to develop in the manner they did or result in the final outcome- for both sides. USA is an empire in rapid decline that is run by a bunch of credentialed idiots who do not want to admit the obvious and presided over by an orange buffoon with the mental maturity of a 16- year old boy. To put it another way, things are far more likely to take unexpected routes and result in disastrous outcomes- especially in an election year. Did I mention that current american policies and attitudes are certain to worsen the ongoing conflicts with DPRK and Iran? In summary, 2020 promises to be interesting year.. perhaps, a bit too interesting for some.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Jan 10, 2020

January 10, 2020 Leave a comment

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

Amateur Cheeky BJs: Jan 5, 2020 – Amateur cuties stuffing their cheeks.

Amateur Eye Contact BJs: Jan 7, 2020 – Amateur cuties giving head with eye contact.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

More Thoughts on Trump’s Latest Idiotic Move to Start a War with Iran

January 7, 2020 13 comments

In my previous post on this topic, I wrote that the extremely stupid decision by Trump to approve the assassination of Qasem Soleimani will have very significant and long-lasting effects on the geopolitical environment in the Middle-East. For starters, it is now virtually guaranteed that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons and ICBMs- mostly likely within next 2-3 years. They have seen the difference that acquiring such weapons made to the security environment of DPRK- a significantly smaller and poorer country than Iran. The assassination of Soleimani is also the final nail in the coffin for the influence of LIEbral faction within their government which had argued for better relationships with USA (and the rapidly declining west) through bad comprises such as JCPOA.

Events since Iran signed that worthless agreement have shown that hardliners who opposed to be far more realistic than the greedy LIEbrals who deluded themselves into thinking that USA (and west in general) would honor international treaties. The upcoming years will see a far harder shift in their foreign policy towards China, and away from catamite states in western Europe. In any case, the west (especially USA) are no longer producers of any resources or products which the world needs- let alone scientific or technological innovation. And now we shall talk a bit more about how Iran is likely to avenge the untimely death of Soleimani. As you will see, they have far more options than the credentialed idiots who appear on, and write in, western corporate media outlets are capable of imagining. We live in interesting times..

1] One of most obvious, but ignored, ways that Iranians could take revenge for Soleimani would be to go after Trump and his progeny. While this would be easier if Trump loses in 2020, they could go after his idiotic progeny even earlier. And it is much easier than you think give that this progeny often travel to countries that are far away from USA and Iran has the organisational capabilities of a large nation state, not some pipsqueak terrorist group. They are also likely counting on his low popularity among many Americans to make any such outcome far more acceptable than it would be otherwise. It would also be an especially audacious and very fitting response to the assassination of Soleimani. While something like this might seem unlikely to most Americans, let me remind you that we are not living in ‘normal’ times.

2] People such as Pompeo, Bolton, Esper, certain advisers to the Trump administration, yappy Chihuahua such as Marc Rubio and Lindsey Graham, rich Zionist donors to the Trump campaigns might also be targeted for assassination by Iran. They present far easier targets than Trump and depending on how things work out, they could put the fear of god into many more. It also helps that many of Trump’s advisers on foreign policy seem to be either Zionist or have strong Zionist sympathies- making them especially enticing targets for Iran. Also a lot of these people have to travel far more and have much less of a security detail than somebody such as Trump and his family. I wonder if idiots such as Pompeo and Bolton have considered that possibility.

3] Regardless of whether Israel was directly, or indirectly, involved in this assassination- it is reasonable to assume that Iran is now going to explicitly target senior Israeli officials and their families. While there was a peculiar unwritten truce between those two countries on the issue of killing members of each other’s government officials- that is now history. It is even more likely that Iran will target Israel assets working in Middle-Eastern countries, regardless of the passports they hold. It will get especially ugly in places where both countries have a presence.. such as Lebanon, Turkey, UAE etc. For too long, people working for that country have felt protected. This is likely the end of that era. It would not be surprising if Iran also started targeting people from that country when they were on vacation in other countries.

4] We cannot also forget the extent of dislike between rulers of Sunni gulf states and Iran. Once again, for a long time this dislike did not degenerate into trying to kill each others rulers and senior government officials. But things have changed now, and what was once unthinkable is now firmly within the realms of possibility. Expect lots of random bombings etc targeting gulf royalty and senior government officials in those countries. I also predict that the uneasy ‘truce’ between Iran and Saudi Arabia is finally over and one can expect Iran to start pouring weapons in Shia areas of Saudi Arabia. Things are about to get very interesting in those countries. It is hard to predict where this is all going to lead, but it will be interesting to watch.

5] While it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will now target american soldiers and mercenaries in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc- we should not forget their native support staff. See.. for each american solider or mercenary, there are probably 5-20 local people who support their presence. It certainly helps that targeting the ‘help’ would be far more easier, and rewarding, for Iran. Very few people are willing to make an extra buck if such a gig comes with a reduced life-expectancy for themselves and their families. This outcome is especially likely in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there is no shortage of other locals (proxies) who hate those who work for whatever is left of the american occupation. Readers might have noticed that most of the possible actions Iran might take in response to Soleimani assassination are not conventional warfare.

In an upcoming part, I will go into some detail about what conventional warfare options are available to Iran. As you will see, they are far more numerous than most “credentialed” western idiots in the MSM are willing to admit.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Trump’s Latest Idiotic Move to Start a War with Iran

January 3, 2020 25 comments

In the previous post, I wrote some very preliminary thoughts on the fallout of orange troll’s latest brainfart- specifically the totally bone-headed move to assassinate Qasem Soleimani when he was on official business in Iraq and on his way to meet government officials to Turkey. And let us be clear about something else, Soleimani’s travel schedule was not secret and he traveled openly to represent the interests of Iranian government. So what are the likely repercussions of this very stupid move by orange buffoon? As it turns out, there will be many consequences both immediate and secondary- and none of them will be good for people in USA.. to put it mildly. I have a feeling that Trump nor his neocon Israeli cronies have a grasp of what they have unleashed. And yes, I am implying that the “chosen people” are not clever as they delude themselves into believing.

1] The most significant, but almost ignored, consequence of this stupid move by Trump and his neocon advisers is that Iran is now definitely going to acquire nuclear weapons and ICBMs. As mentioned in a previous post, the main reason for Iranian government to not go down the route taken by North Korea took was that a significant number of them believed that some sort of long-term peace deal with USA was possible. However developments in past three years have clearly shown that Kim Jong-un’s plan to acquire nuclear weapons and ICBMs which could reliably target american cities for the purpose of deterrence was the correct one. In contrast, the LIEbral faction within the Iranian government which wanted better relations with the “west” even if doing so meant capping their nuclear and missile ambitions have been shown to be wrong.

2] The assassination of Soleimani by USA should be seen as the inflection point when credibility of western-leaning LIEbral faction in Iran went below zero. To say that this shift will have major consequences is an understatement. From now on, the viewpoint of hardliners in Iranian system becomes the dominant and almost universally accepted one within that country. For uninformed western readers, the hardliners in Iran are far more driven by nationalism than religion- like how the North Vietnamese were far more into nationalism than communism. One can safely assume that any new deal between Iran and USA or its catamite western allies is basically impossible in the foreseeable future. And who needs USA and the west, when you have China aka the country with the largest and most diverse real-life economy in the world.

3] Talking about China.. as many of you know, Trump and his stupid “advisers” have done many stupid (trade-related) things in past three years to convince the Chinese that letting USA hang itself is necessary. And let us be realistic about something else- there is nothing which USA manufactures today which the world would really miss if the country vanished from the face of this planet tomorrow. It also does not help that Trump, in spite of what idiots such as MikeCA believe, has done much to antagonize Russia. Long story short, neither country will be unhappy to see the USA militarily humiliated and further drained of resources in the Middle-East. China, in particular, rightly sees the USA as a dying empire in its terminal phase. They will be more than happy to let another country, such as Iran, accelerate the demise of USA and the west in general.

4] Maybe the orange buffoon and his Zionist advisers are trying to make themselves believe that Iran will finally fight on a battlefield and schedule which suits american arms doctrine. However anybody who is not delusional enough to believe that they are the “chosen people” because of their race (whites in USA) or religion (another country in the ME) understand that Iran has a history of fighting on a battlefield of their choice and a schedule of their choosing. To put it another way, you can expect a lot of.. well.. unrest in surrounding countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan which will likely target people who look american. There is historical precedence for this sort of targeting- and it can be most persuasive and effective.

Does Trump really think that he can protect every single american and his family working in Iraq and Afghanistan? To be clear, I am talking about people who work in non-military occupations, such as those who work in the oil and gas sector. Do you really think that Iran will not start targeting select oil and gas facilities in Iraq- especially in areas with western companies? FYI- Iran did not do this for many years because it wanted to normalize relations with USA and the west, but since there is no chance of that occurring in the foreseeable future it makes sense to go after soft targets which were forbidden in the past. Similarly, don’t be surprised if that Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan suddenly receive huge caches of weapons along with advisers.

A few well publicized incidents will likely result in most westerners avoid travelling, let alone living, in that country. Let me remind you that most people in Iraq and Afghanistan already hate white americans. And ya.. it works. Just ask Israelis why they had to withdraw from Lebanon by 2000. Another long story short, it was just too expensive and too hard to operate without suffering serious casualties- even for its armed forces. Now imagine what Iran can do in its neighboring countries and half a world away from USA. And don’t worry, countries such as Russia and China will be more than happy to supplement the efforts of Iran in those countries. If you thought that the previous failed occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were unmitigated disasters, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Then again, that is the logical endpoint of american policy.

In the next part, I will focus on how the orange buffoon’s desire to satisfy Saudi Arabia and Israel, in addition to looking “tough” during the 2020 election campaign, are going to backfire on him. Then again, cannot think of somebody who deserves it more.. except perhaps all those establishment democrats who are as desperate to enter into a new war in that part of the world.

What do you think? comments?

Very Quick Thoughts on Trump’s Latest Idiotic Move in the Middle-East

January 2, 2020 10 comments

Trump is finally on his way to becoming the most disastrous president in contemporary american history. In case you are wondering, until yesterday Trump hadn’t done the one thing which would make him a bigger fuckup than Bush43 aka starting a new war in the Middle-East. It seems that he has crossed that barrier, in a manner that basically guarantees that outcome. I, for one, am happy that Trump has chosen his true destiny- as the dummy who presides over the implosion of a slowly dying empire. While I have much more to say on this topic, here a few older posts to tide you over till tomorrow. Also, things could change a lot between now and tomorrow.

Some Thoughts on How a War Between Iran and ‘USA’ Might Unfold

The ideal situation, as far as Iran is concerned, is for USA to attack it without significant preparation (troops on ground) and not expect a serious response. But once they do attack Iran, expect it to systematically target and destroy Saudi and UAE ports, oil storage installations, pipelines, desalination plants, brine-pumping plants etc. Iran wants to cause enough damage to shut down the oil output of those countries for at least a few months. And they have enough cruise and ballistic missiles with the requisite range and accuracy to pull that off.

It goes without saying that such a large-scale but unconventional attack across neighboring countries would cause mass panic and result in the abrupt departure of many ruling families- in addition to yet another refugee crisis. The perceived inability of USA to protect the interests of their local stooges will further damage whatever residual credibility it still has in that region. To summarize, given available options and capabilities, Iran is likely to rapidly exacerbate war with USA, by going after its oil-producing client states in that region.

On the Inevitability of Iran Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Within 5 Years

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.

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.

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

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.

There are Two Pathways for Trump’s Presidency to Implode in Real-Life

Let us, now, talk about the consequences of new wars. As many of you know, Saudi Barbaria and that Zionist state want Uncle Sam to fight full-scale wars against Iran and Syria. Of course, they don’t care about consequences and outcomes of such wars or the monetary costs of these misadventures- or maybe, they have not thought through these issues carefully. Regardless, both potential conflicts are highly problematic- albeit for different reasons. Iran is far larger, much more united and way more populous than Iraq. Imagine invading a country that makes most of its own weapons, is about 1/5 th the size of USA and about 1/4 th the population. Did I mention that they fought a pretty long war with heavy casualties for eight years?

But.. but.. wouldn’t “superior” american airpower decimate their air-force or something like that? Well.. have a look at the location of that country and the major route for global oil transport. Do you really think that USA can keep the strait of Hormuz open- even if they had three aircraft carrier groups stationed next to that bottleneck? Did I mention they have tons of good anti-ship missiles, not to mention other means of disrupting oil transport directly. Then there is the issue of what their less-official forces might do with missiles to oil storage hubs on coast of Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries. Remember that they do not have to be especially effective to disrupt global flow of oil and send prices through the roof. Who wants to pay 300-400$ per barrel of oil?

What do you think? Comments?

Why Nixon Was Almost Impeached and Had to Resign the Presidency

January 1, 2020 2 comments

In early 2013, I wrote a post on why Nixon was still the most reviled president in recent american history. Since that time (especially post Nov 8, 2016) things have.. changed. While establishment democrats have been busy trying to sell the bullshit farce of Trump’s impeachment via a totally partisan vote in the house, I thought it would be a good time to return to topic of impeachment- specifically focusing on the last president who resigned rather than face impeachment. As many of you know, dying corporate media figureheads have been futilely masturbating at the possibility of Trump resigning or being removed from office ever since he won the election in 2016. So let us talk about why Nixon resigned rather than face removal through impeachment and why the later possibility was realistic in the early 1970s, but is laughably improbable in 2020.

1] The 1970s and 1980s were the last decades when the electorate and politicians in this country were not ideologically polarized. It is noteworthy that 1973 was immediately after the last great political realignment of 1968-1972, which was caused by passage of civil right and other similar legislation and resulted in a realignment of the political fortunes for both major parties. After that realignment, democrats started winning in traditionally republican constituencies and regions while republicans started winning in democratic strongholds in the south. But more relevantly, the reasonably good economic times (or at least their recent memory) along with the relatively minor differences in public positions of both parties in combination with lots of deal making in smokey rooms made something like bipartisan impeachment of the president a real possibility.

2] While Nixon won the 1972 presidential election by a large margin, he was never personally a popular president with a loyal base. To make matters worse, he had stepped on the toes of many fellow republicans during his rise to power. While politicians as a group are not known for loyalty to their colleagues, having a long history of pissing of your fellow partisans makes such decisions that much easier. Nixon had, over the eight years of his vice-presidency under Eisenhower and first term as president, amply demonstrated his tendency to be untrustworthy to his own party members as well as hog the limelight. Read a bit about the machinations which got him selected as republican candidate in 1962 and 1968. It is no wonder that so many of his own party members were, at at best, ambivalent in their support for him.

3] Nixon was unlucky to be elected at a transitional period in american history. His victory in 1968 came in an era of much racial and social conflict, not to mention all those “mysterious” political assassinations. He was also unfortunate to come to power at the same time as formerly popular but now exposed assholes such as Curtis LeMay, J. Edgar Hoover, Robert Moses etc had started to lose their positions of authority and power. In other words, the public was increasingly associating men of his type and generation with abuse of power and general malfeasance- sorta being like catholic priests in the past decade. While this, by itself, would have not been deadly to his political career – it occurred alongside many large failures over which he ended up presiding.

4] Nixon was also unlucky enough to be the president when USA had to finally withdraw from erstwhile south Vietnam. As I have mentioned in some previous posts, USA has not won a single large armed conflict since WW2. However their previous defeats such as an inability to win the Korean war had been sold to the american public as stalemates. The defeat in Vietnam was however simply too obvious to spin and though Nixon did not initiate the american involvement in that conflict, he was the president when the maximum number of american soldiers died in that war. Leaks about the “secret” mass bombings of Laos and Cambodia did not help his public image either, not because the racist white american public cared about innocent Asian lives but because the expenditure of all that money, white lives and bombs did not prevent their defeat in Vietnam.

5] Nixon was also unlucky be president towards the end of three decades of post-WW2 prosperity enjoyed by americans. He was the president when Stagflation became a thing and his attempts price control measures did not work as intended. the USA also looked impotent in the aftermath of the oil shock of the early-1970s. The achievements and optimism of the 1950s and 1960s had given way to defeatism and pessimism of the 1970s. Nixon became increasingly associated in the minds of the public and politicians with a country that was past its prime and on a path of decline. We also cannot forget the numerous investigations into illegal activities by governmental agencies such as the Church Committee were started after leaks such as the Pentagon Papers and other similar revelations which permanently damaged the public image of many american government agencies and institutions. Much of this occurred while Nixon was president.

To make a long story short, the impeachment of Nixon had nothing to do with “maintaining the rule of law” or any other moralistic-sounding bullshit. It, however, had everything to do with an attempt to rebrand the american government and institutions by forcing out an already disliked president who just happened to be the public face of many failures suffered by the american establishment in the late-1960s and early-1970s. They just wanted to replace an old mascot of declining popularity with another one who appeared better on TV and did not instantly remind americans of the numerous recent failures suffered by their elites and institutions. After Nixon resigned, being able to maintain a positive public image became the defining attribute of any president. And that is why establishment media and their willing catamites still obsess about the image of politicians rather than their actions and impact of their decisions.

What do you think? Comments?